You thought you had control. That is what everyone thinks at first. You downloaded the app because the commercials made it look fun, because your friends were doing it, because you enjoyed sports anyway and this seemed like a natural extension. Maybe you won a little money early on. Maybe you felt smart, connected, like you had found something that made watching games more exciting. And then somewhere along the way, it stopped being fun. You found yourself checking your phone during family dinner. Placing bets on games you did not even care about. Lying about how much you had lost. Borrowing money you could not pay back. The shame became enormous. You wondered what was wrong with you, why you could not just stop.
When you finally talked to someone about it, maybe a therapist or a financial counselor or a doctor, they used words like gambling disorder and behavioral addiction. They explained that your brain had been changed, that the dopamine patterns looked similar to substance addiction, that this was a recognized psychiatric condition. And you felt relief mixed with devastation. Relief because there was a name for what was happening. Devastation because you realized how far it had gone. You had lost savings, damaged relationships, spent hours you would never get back. You blamed yourself completely.
But court filings in lawsuits against the major sports betting companies tell a different story. According to these complaints, the platforms you were using were not neutral tools. The lawsuits allege they were designed, tested, and refined using behavioral psychology research specifically to maximize the time you spent on the app and the frequency of your bets. The complaints claim that internal documents show these companies had research about addiction risk and made deliberate choices about how to build their platforms anyway. What happened to you, according to these court filings, was not a personal failure. It was a documented design outcome.
What Happened
Gambling disorder is what clinicians call it, but people who live with it describe it differently. It is the inability to stop even when you are losing money you need for rent. It is the intrusive thoughts about odds and spreads that interrupt every other part of your life. It is the physical restlessness and irritability when you cannot place a bet. It is lying to people you love about where the money went. It is the crushing cycle of chasing losses, where each bet is supposed to win back what you lost before, and instead the hole gets deeper.
People describe feeling like they are watching themselves make decisions they know are destructive but cannot stop. They describe the high of a win that lasts minutes and the despair of a loss that lasts days. They describe checking their phones hundreds of times a day, sometimes in the middle of the night, to see live odds or in-play betting opportunities. They describe maxing out credit cards, taking out loans, borrowing from family members they then avoid. They describe the moment when they realized they had lost not just money but time, relationships, self-respect, and any clear path back to where they were before.
The financial devastation is often measurable. People lose tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes hundreds of thousands. They drain retirement accounts, college funds, emergency savings. But the psychological damage is harder to quantify. The constant preoccupation with gambling. The mood swings tied to wins and losses. The isolation that comes from hiding the extent of the problem. The shame that prevents people from asking for help until the damage is severe. The depression and anxiety that often accompany the disorder. Some people describe suicidal thoughts when the losses became unmanageable.
The Connection
Sports betting apps are designed to be fundamentally different from traditional gambling. According to research published in the journal Addictive Behaviors in 2021, mobile betting platforms create what researchers call continuous gambling opportunities, meaning users can place bets at any time from anywhere, often on events happening in real time. This eliminates the natural barriers that existed with physical casinos or betting shops, where you had to make a decision to go to a location and the gambling stopped when you left.
The apps use what the lawsuits describe as behavioral design features specifically engineered to increase engagement. According to complaints filed in multiple jurisdictions, these features include push notifications that alert users to betting opportunities throughout the day, in-play or live betting that allows wagers on events as they unfold moment by moment, one-click bet placement that removes friction from the decision to gamble, and personalized promotions based on user behavior data. The lawsuits allege that these design choices are not accidental but are the result of deliberate product development aimed at maximizing user engagement, which in the betting industry directly correlates to revenue.
Research on behavioral addiction shows that variable reward schedules, where wins are unpredictable, create stronger compulsive behavior than predictable rewards. A study published in the Journal of Behavioral Addictions in 2020 found that the structure of sports betting, where outcomes are uncertain and near-misses are frequent, activates the same dopamine pathways in the brain that are involved in substance addiction. The experience of almost winning, which happens constantly in sports betting, triggers continued gambling behavior even more effectively than actual wins.
The speed of play matters enormously. A 2019 study in the International Gambling Studies journal found that faster gambling formats are associated with higher rates of problem gambling. Traditional sports betting involved placing a wager before an event and waiting for the outcome. In-play betting allows dozens or hundreds of bets during a single game, with outcomes resolved in seconds or minutes. According to court filings, internal research at the major betting companies showed that in-play betting generated significantly higher engagement and revenue per user than traditional pre-game betting, and the lawsuits allege the companies expanded these features knowing the addiction risk data.
The apps also create what researchers call illusory control, the false sense that skill or knowledge can influence random outcomes. The detailed statistics, the expert analysis tools, the ability to cash out early, all create the impression that the user is making informed strategic decisions rather than placing bets on events they cannot control. According to a 2022 study published in Computers in Human Behavior, this perception of control is associated with increased gambling frequency and higher rates of problem gambling, particularly among sports fans who believe their knowledge gives them an edge.
What The Lawsuits Allege They Knew
According to court filings, the timeline of what sports betting companies knew about addiction risk begins well before most states legalized online sports betting. The complaints reference a body of research on gambling disorder that has existed for decades, including its classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. When these companies were designing their mobile platforms, according to the lawsuits, the connection between design features and addictive behavior was established in published literature.
The lawsuits allege that DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM each conducted internal research and user testing that tracked engagement metrics closely tied to problem gambling behavior. According to complaints filed in 2023 and 2024, these metrics included session length, frequency of betting, time spent on the app, and percentage of users who returned within hours of losing money. The lawsuits claim that internal documents show these companies understood that a subset of users, estimated in some filings at between five and ten percent, generated a disproportionate share of revenue, and that these high-frequency users exhibited behavioral patterns consistent with gambling disorder.
Court filings cite testimony from former employees who, according to the complaints, stated that product development meetings focused on increasing what the companies called stickiness and engagement, which in practice meant getting users to open the app more often and place more bets. The lawsuits allege that features like push notifications, bonus bets, and in-play wagering were tested and refined specifically to achieve these goals. According to the complaints, internal communications showed that some employees raised concerns about addiction risk, but these concerns were overridden by business decisions prioritizing user growth and revenue.
The complaints reference the 2018 Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. NCAA, which struck down the federal prohibition on sports betting and allowed states to legalize it. According to the lawsuits, in the period between that decision and the launch of legal sports betting in dozens of states, the major betting companies were building their mobile platforms and making design choices. The lawsuits allege that during this period, the companies had access to research from jurisdictions where online betting was already legal, including studies from the United Kingdom and Australia documenting high rates of gambling problems associated with mobile betting apps.
A 2019 report from the UK Gambling Commission, cited in multiple complaints, found that problem gambling rates were significantly higher among users of online betting platforms compared to traditional in-person gambling. The lawsuits allege that executives at the major US betting companies were aware of this research and that internal communications referenced the UK experience, but that the companies proceeded with design features similar to those associated with problem gambling in the UK market.
Court filings also point to the marketing strategies deployed as states legalized sports betting. According to the complaints, the companies spent billions on advertising between 2019 and 2023, often featuring celebrity endorsers and messages that normalized frequent betting. The lawsuits allege that these marketing campaigns targeted young men in particular, a demographic that research shows is at elevated risk for gambling disorder. The complaints cite internal marketing documents that allegedly identified first-time bettors and users with limited gambling experience as priority customer acquisition targets.
The lawsuits reference the responsible gambling tools that betting companies include in their apps, such as deposit limits and self-exclusion options, but allege that these tools were designed to be minimally effective. According to the complaints, internal data showed that very few users activated these features, and that the companies did not take steps to make them more prominent or to proactively identify users showing signs of problem gambling. The lawsuits allege that some internal communications described responsible gambling features as regulatory compliance measures rather than genuine harm reduction efforts.
According to complaints filed in Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey in 2023 and 2024, the companies tracked users who repeatedly depleted their account balances and immediately redeposited money, a pattern recognized in the clinical literature as a warning sign of gambling disorder. The lawsuits allege that rather than intervening with these users or limiting their access, the companies sent them targeted promotions to encourage continued betting. The complaints cite internal emails allegedly showing that high-frequency users, including those exhibiting problem gambling behaviors, were referred to as VIPs and received personalized attention from customer retention teams.
What The Lawsuits Say About Concealment
The court filings allege that the betting companies engaged in multiple forms of concealment regarding addiction risk. According to the complaints, this concealment took several forms, each described in detail in the litigation documents.
First, the lawsuits allege that the companies funded research organizations and academic programs in ways that influenced the public conversation about gambling harm. According to complaints filed in 2024, the major betting companies provided significant financial support to certain research institutions studying gambling, and the lawsuits claim that this funding came with implicit or explicit expectations about the framing of research findings. The complaints allege that company-funded research was more likely to emphasize personal responsibility and individual risk factors for problem gambling, rather than examining how platform design and business practices contribute to addiction.
Second, the lawsuits claim that the companies lobbied aggressively in state legislatures as sports betting legalization was debated. According to the complaints, internal documents show that the companies opposed regulations that would have required more prominent responsible gambling warnings, stricter advertising limitations, or mandatory interventions when users exhibited high-risk behaviors. The lawsuits allege that industry lobbyists provided testimony and written materials to legislators that minimized addiction risk and emphasized potential tax revenue, without disclosing internal research the companies had about problem gambling rates among their users.
Third, according to court filings, the companies included mandatory arbitration clauses and class action waivers in their terms of service, which the lawsuits allege were designed to prevent users from bringing collective legal claims about addiction and to keep disputes out of public court proceedings. The complaints argue that these contractual terms, combined with non-disclosure agreements sometimes offered in individual settlement discussions, had the effect of concealing the extent of gambling-related harm from public view and regulatory scrutiny.
Fourth, the lawsuits allege that the companies provided misleading or incomplete information to regulators in newly legal states. According to the complaints, when state gambling commissions asked about problem gambling prevention measures during licensing processes, the companies submitted materials emphasizing their responsible gambling programs without disclosing internal data about how rarely users activated these tools or about the behavioral patterns of high-frequency users. The lawsuits claim this amounted to material omissions in regulatory proceedings.
The complaints also describe what they characterize as a collective industry effort to shape public perception. According to the lawsuits, the American Gaming Association, an industry trade group funded by the major betting companies, issued public statements and research summaries that emphasized the benefits of legal regulated betting and minimized discussions of addiction risk. The lawsuits allege that these communications created a public narrative that problem gambling was rare and primarily the result of individual predisposition, rather than a foreseeable consequence of platform design choices made by the companies.
Why Your Doctor May Not Have Told You
Gambling disorder is a relatively new area of focus in mainstream medicine. Unlike substance addictions, which have been part of medical training for decades, behavioral addictions are less well integrated into primary care practice. Many physicians, unless they specialize in addiction medicine or psychiatry, may not routinely screen for gambling problems or recognize the signs. This is not a failure of individual doctors but a reflection of how medical education and clinical guidelines develop, often with a time lag behind emerging public health threats.
When a new risk emerges rapidly, as sports betting apps did following the 2018 legalization, there is often a gap before the medical community has clear guidance about screening and intervention. Sports betting became widely accessible to millions of people within a span of just a few years. Research on the specific harms of mobile betting platforms takes time to design, conduct, and publish. Clinical guidelines take additional time to incorporate new evidence. During that gap, people can develop serious problems before the healthcare system has caught up to the risk.
The lawsuits allege that the betting companies did not take steps to educate healthcare providers about gambling disorder or to provide clear information about how to identify users who might be developing problems. According to the complaints, unlike pharmaceutical companies that are required to provide prescribing information and risk warnings to doctors, betting companies had no such obligation and provided minimal public health information to medical professionals. The lawsuits claim that this absence of provider education was a deliberate choice, as increased medical awareness of gambling disorder could have led to interventions that reduced user engagement and company revenue.
There is also the matter of how risk information reaches doctors in the first place. With medications, there are FDA warnings, package inserts, and continuing medical education programs often funded by manufacturers as part of regulatory requirements. For gambling, no comparable system exists. According to court filings, the betting companies sponsored some educational initiatives about responsible gambling, but the lawsuits allege these programs focused on individual self-assessment tools rather than training healthcare providers to identify and intervene with at-risk patients. The complaints suggest this focus was intentional, placing responsibility on users rather than creating external systems of identification and intervention.
Additionally, gambling disorder often presents alongside other mental health conditions. People may see their doctor for depression, anxiety, or stress-related physical symptoms without mentioning gambling, either because they feel ashamed or because they do not recognize the connection. Unless a physician specifically asks about gambling behavior, which many do not in routine visits, the underlying cause may remain hidden. The lawsuits allege that the betting companies were aware from their user data that many problem gamblers did not self-identify as having a problem, and that the companies did not develop systems to bridge that gap or alert users showing high-risk patterns.
Who Is Affected
If you are reading this and some part of the experience sounds familiar, you are not alone. The people affected by sports betting apps come from every background and every state where online betting is legal. But there are some common patterns in who develops gambling disorder from these platforms.
You may have started using a sports betting app within the past five years, likely since 2019 or 2020 when many states first legalized online sports betting. You probably began casually, maybe with a promotional offer that gave you free bets or matched your first deposit. You likely have some interest in sports, though you do not have to be a lifelong fan. The apps made it easy to bet on sports you did not know much about, or on aspects of games like individual player performance that created constant betting opportunities.
You found yourself using the app more frequently than you intended. What started as betting on your favorite team became betting on multiple games a day, then on sports you did not particularly care about, then on live events as they happened. You probably used in-play betting, where you could place wagers during the game and see results within minutes. You may have felt like you were developing a system or a strategy, like your knowledge of sports gave you an edge. You probably had some wins that felt significant, which kept you coming back.
At some point, the losses started to accumulate. You may have begun chasing losses, making larger or more frequent bets to try to win back what you had lost. You found yourself thinking about betting constantly, planning your day around games, checking odds when you woke up and before you went to sleep. You may have borrowed money, used credit cards, or dipped into savings you had set aside for other purposes. You probably hid the extent of your betting from family or friends, deleted app notifications so others would not see them, or lied about where money was going.
You likely experienced relationship problems. Arguments about money or about how much time you spent on your phone. Missed family events because of betting. A growing sense of isolation as you prioritized gambling over social connections. You may have experienced work problems too, difficulty concentrating, checking your phone during meetings, declining performance because your mind was elsewhere.
You might have tried to stop or cut back and found that you could not, at least not for long. You may have deleted the app and reinstalled it days later. You may have set limits that you then ignored. You may have felt physical symptoms when you tried to stop, restlessness or irritability or anxiety. If you reached out for help, you might have found that resources were limited, that therapists in your area did not specialize in gambling disorders, that support groups were hard to find.
The timeline matters for legal purposes. Most of the lawsuits involve people who developed gambling disorder while using apps operated by DraftKings, FanDuel, or BetMGM in states where online sports betting was legal, primarily from 2019 forward. The financial losses vary widely, from thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars, but the legal claims do not depend on a minimum loss amount. What matters is the pattern of behavior and the diagnosis of gambling disorder, which is a recognized psychiatric condition with specific diagnostic criteria.
Where Things Stand
As of 2024, litigation against the major sports betting companies is in its early stages but growing. Individual lawsuits have been filed in multiple states, including Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. These cases raise claims including negligent design, failure to warn about addiction risk, unfair and deceptive business practices, and in some instances, fraud based on allegations that the companies made misleading statements about responsible gambling while designing their platforms to maximize addictive engagement.
The legal theories in these cases draw on precedents from other product liability and consumer protection litigation. Some complaints compare the betting apps to other products found to be defectively designed when they created foreseeable risks of harm that could have been reduced through alternative designs. Other complaints focus on state consumer protection statutes, arguing that the companies engaged in unfair business practices by failing to disclose known risks or by making misleading statements about their commitment to responsible gambling.
The companies have moved to dismiss many of these cases, arguing that gambling is an inherently risky activity that users choose to engage in, that the apps provide responsible gambling tools, and that users are responsible for their own betting decisions. Some of the companies have also argued that the claims are preempted by state gambling regulations or that they are barred by mandatory arbitration clauses in the terms of service. As of late 2024, courts are still ruling on these initial motions, and no case has yet proceeded to trial.
There is also growing attention to this issue outside the courtroom. State attorneys general in several states have opened investigations into the marketing and design practices of sports betting companies. Legislative proposals have been introduced in multiple states to impose stricter regulations on betting apps, including mandatory timeout periods, limits on in-play betting, and requirements that companies proactively intervene when users exhibit high-risk behaviors. Some of these proposals have been opposed by industry lobbying, according to news reports.
Academic research continues to document the scope of the problem. A 2023 study published in JAMA Network Open found that the prevalence of gambling disorder increased significantly in states after they legalized online sports betting, with the largest increases among young adults. Public health researchers have called for the betting apps to be regulated more like other products that carry addiction risk, with mandatory warning labels, restrictions on advertising, and requirements for companies to fund independent research and treatment programs.
For individuals considering legal action, the process typically begins with documenting the history of app usage, financial losses, and the impact on health and relationships. Medical records showing a diagnosis of gambling disorder or treatment for related mental health conditions can be important evidence. Bank statements, credit card records, and screenshots from betting accounts help establish the timeline and extent of gambling activity. Many of the attorneys handling these cases are working with expert witnesses including psychiatrists who specialize in addiction, economists who can calculate financial damages, and technology experts who can analyze app design features.
The timeline for these cases is uncertain. Product liability and consumer protection litigation often takes years to resolve, particularly when it involves novel legal theories and well-funded corporate defendants. Some cases may be consolidated into multidistrict litigation if courts find that they involve common questions of fact. Settlement negotiations may occur at various stages, though as of late 2024, no major settlements have been publicly announced. The outcome of early motions to dismiss will be significant in determining whether these cases proceed to discovery, where plaintiffs would have the opportunity to obtain internal company documents that could support the allegations in the complaints.
What This Means
If you developed gambling disorder after using a sports betting app, what you experienced was not a personal moral failure. It was not weak willpower or a character flaw. According to the lawsuits filed against these companies, it was the foreseeable result of deliberate design choices made by corporations that had research about addiction risk and built their products to maximize engagement anyway. The court filings describe a pattern where business decisions prioritized revenue over user welfare, where warning signs in user behavior were treated as opportunities for targeted marketing rather than moments for intervention, where the tools offered as harm reduction measures were designed to satisfy regulators rather than to genuinely help people.
You were not gambling in a casino where you had to make an active decision to walk through the doors and where the gambling stopped when you left. You were using a product that was engineered to be with you constantly, to send you notifications throughout the day, to make placing a bet as frictionless as possible, to create hundreds of betting opportunities during a single game. According to the allegations in these lawsuits, every one of those features was a choice, tested and refined using data about how to keep you engaged. The shame you feel, the bewilderment at how it got so out of control, those feelings are real and valid. But they exist in a context that the litigation is working to expose.
The legal process moves slowly, and its outcome cannot be predicted. But the act of these lawsuits existing, of the allegations being made in public court filings, of the demand that these companies produce their internal research and communications, that matters regardless of how any individual case is decided. It creates a record. It puts into the public sphere questions about how new technologies are designed and deployed, about what responsibilities companies have when their products carry known risks of serious harm, about whether the priorities that drive product development should include user welfare or only user engagement. What happened to you is part of a larger story, one that is still being written, about whether the law will recognize that design choices are not neutral and that companies can be held accountable for foreseeable harms their products cause.