You thought you had control. That was the whole point, right? You could place a bet during the commercial break, check the score at halftime, cash out if things went south. It was entertainment. It was engagement with the game. And then somewhere along the way, without you noticing the exact moment it shifted, you realized you were checking the app before you opened your eyes in the morning. You were betting on games you did not care about, sports you did not follow, outcomes that meant nothing except the chance to win back what you had already lost. By the time you understood what was happening, you had burned through your savings, lied to people you loved, and felt a kind of desperation you had never experienced before.
When you finally told someone, when you finally used the words gambling disorder or addiction, you probably assumed this was a personal failing. A lack of discipline. A character flaw. Your doctor may have referred you to a counselor or a support group, and that help may have been necessary and good. But what your doctor probably did not tell you, because they may not have known themselves, was that the platform you were using was not a neutral tool. It was not like walking into a casino and choosing to sit at a table. It was something designed, refined, and optimized with specific features that behavioral scientists have known for decades can accelerate the development of addictive patterns.
What happened to you was not bad luck. It was not a weakness unique to you. And according to lawsuits now filed against DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM, it may have been the foreseeable result of design choices these companies made while in possession of research showing the addiction risks of the very features they were building into their platforms.
What Happened
Gambling disorder is a recognized diagnosis in the DSM-5, the manual clinicians use to diagnose mental health conditions. But the clinical language does not capture what it actually feels like. People describe it as a hijacking. You start using a sports betting app casually, the way the advertisements suggest you should: a little action on the game to make it more exciting, maybe a few dollars on a parlay with friends. The app is smooth, fast, intuitive. You can place a bet in seconds. You get notifications. You get bonus bets. You get offers personalized to your behavior.
Then the losing starts, or more precisely, the inability to stop after losing starts. You feel a pull to open the app even when you are at work, at dinner, in bed next to your partner. You begin chasing losses, betting more than you planned, more than you have. The app makes it easy. You can deposit money instantly. You can bet on live games as they unfold, minute by minute, with odds that update in real time. There is always another opportunity, another market, another chance.
The emotional consequences come fast. Shame. Panic. A frantic energy that other people start to notice. The financial consequences pile up: drained accounts, maxed credit cards, borrowed money that cannot be repaid. Relationships crack under the weight of lies and absences and the emotional volatility that comes with this kind of desperation. People lose jobs. They lose marriages. Some lose their lives. The suicide rate among people with gambling disorder is among the highest of any psychiatric condition, comparable to major depression and substance use disorders.
The Connection
Sports betting apps are not the same as traditional gambling. The differences are not superficial. They are structural, and they matter. A 2022 study published in the International Gambling Studies journal found that the speed of online gambling, the ease of access, and the integration of gambling into non-gambling activities like watching sports significantly increased the risk of developing gambling disorder compared to land-based gambling.
The key features are well documented in the scientific literature. Variable ratio reinforcement schedules, where rewards are unpredictable, are among the most powerful tools for creating compulsive behavior. B.F. Skinner demonstrated this in laboratory studies in the 1950s, and every subsequent generation of behavioral research has confirmed it. Slot machines use this principle. So do social media feeds. And so do sports betting apps, where you do not know which bet will win, but the possibility is always there, always immediate.
In-play or live betting allows users to place wagers while a game is in progress, with odds that shift constantly. A 2020 study in the journal Addictive Behaviors found that in-play betting was associated with higher rates of problem gambling, in part because it removes the natural pause that existed in traditional gambling. You do not have to wait until the next game, the next race, the next day. You can bet again right now, and again thirty seconds from now.
Push notifications bring the app to you, even when you are not seeking it out. A 2021 study published in Computers in Human Behavior found that gambling-related notifications increased urges to gamble and were associated with loss of control. The notifications are often personalized, timed to moments of vulnerability, and framed as opportunities too good to pass up.
Bonus bets and promotions create what researchers call illusory control, the mistaken belief that you have an edge, that this time is different. These offers are not random. They are often targeted to users who have lost money, a practice the industry calls re-engagement but that behavioral scientists recognize as exploiting the cognitive distortions that drive addictive gambling.
The apps are also designed for speed. Frictionless deposits, one-tap betting, instant gratification. A 2019 study in the Journal of Gambling Studies found that reducing the time between decision and outcome, and between outcome and the next bet, significantly increased the risk of loss of control. Every feature that makes the app feel seamless and intuitive is also a feature that removes the natural braking mechanisms that might allow a person to pause, reflect, and stop.
What The Lawsuits Allege They Knew
Lawsuits filed against DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM allege that these companies were aware of the addiction risks associated with the design features they were implementing, and that they chose to prioritize user engagement and revenue over safety. These are allegations set out in complaints, not findings of fact, but they are based on a timeline of research, industry knowledge, and corporate behavior that the plaintiffs argue demonstrates a pattern of reckless disregard.
The scientific literature on gambling addiction and the specific risks of online gambling was not hidden or obscure. By the time these companies launched their sports betting platforms in the United States, following the 2018 Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. NCAA that opened the door for states to legalize sports betting, the research was decades deep. Studies on variable ratio reinforcement, on the addictive potential of continuous gambling opportunities, and on the heightened risks of online platforms were published and widely available.
According to court filings, DraftKings and FanDuel both employed behavioral scientists and data analysts whose job was to understand user behavior and optimize engagement. The lawsuits allege that these companies had internal data showing patterns consistent with problem gambling: users betting beyond their means, chasing losses, returning to the app at high frequency, and exhibiting signs of compulsivity. The complaints claim that rather than using this data to implement meaningful safeguards, the companies used it to refine the features that kept users engaged.
The lawsuits point to specific design choices. The complaints allege that defendants knew that push notifications increased urges to gamble and were associated with loss of control, but continued to use them as a primary tool for driving user activity. The filings allege that the companies knew that in-play betting carried heightened addiction risks, but marketed it aggressively as a core feature. According to the complaints, the defendants knew that bonus bets and promotional offers were particularly effective at re-engaging users who had lost money, a population at elevated risk for gambling disorder, but targeted those users deliberately.
The lawsuits also cite statements made by company executives and marketing materials that, the plaintiffs argue, reflect an awareness of the addictive potential of the platforms. Court filings reference investor presentations in which engagement metrics, time spent in-app, and frequency of betting were highlighted as key performance indicators. The complaints allege that these metrics are not neutral measures of product success, but are the same behavioral patterns that clinicians recognize as symptoms of gambling disorder: inability to cut back, preoccupation, and loss of control.
In 2021, a report by the UK Gambling Commission, which regulates gambling in a market where online betting has been legal for years, found that online gambling operators were using aggressive marketing tactics and design features that exploited vulnerable users. While this report pertained to a different jurisdiction, the lawsuits allege that U.S. companies like DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM were aware of these findings and the regulatory scrutiny in other countries, yet proceeded with similar practices in the United States.
The complaints also point to the companies' own responsible gambling measures as evidence of knowledge. The lawsuits allege that the defendants implemented deposit limits, time-outs, and self-exclusion options, which shows they were aware that some users would lose control. But the filings claim that these tools were buried in settings menus, difficult to find, and rarely promoted, while the features that drove compulsive use were front and center, amplified by notifications, bonuses, and constant in-app prompts to keep betting.
What The Lawsuits Say About Concealment
The complaints allege that the companies did not merely fail to warn users about the risks of addiction; they actively concealed those risks and promoted a misleading narrative about the nature of their products. These are allegations made in the litigation, not established facts, but they describe a pattern of behavior that the plaintiffs argue amounts to deception.
According to the lawsuits, the companies marketed their apps as entertainment, as a way to enhance the enjoyment of watching sports, rather than as gambling products with serious and well-documented risks. The complaints allege that advertising campaigns featured themes of fun, friendship, and fandom, while omitting any meaningful discussion of addiction potential. The filings claim that this framing was deliberate, designed to lower the psychological barrier to entry and to appeal to people who would not consider themselves gamblers.
The lawsuits also allege that the companies used celebrity endorsements, partnerships with sports leagues, and advertising during family-friendly broadcasts to normalize sports betting and to associate it with mainstream sports culture. The complaints argue that this strategy was intended to obscure the reality that these platforms use the same behavioral mechanisms as slot machines and other forms of gambling recognized as high-risk for addiction.
According to court filings, the defendants lobbied state legislatures and regulatory bodies to adopt frameworks that allowed them to operate with minimal oversight and limited responsible gambling requirements. The lawsuits allege that the companies pushed for self-regulation and opposed measures such as mandatory pre-commitment limits, cooling-off periods, and restrictions on advertising, all of which have been shown in other jurisdictions to reduce gambling-related harm. The complaints claim that this lobbying was motivated by profit and reflected a desire to avoid accountability for the harms their platforms were causing.
The filings also allege that the companies collected vast amounts of data on user behavior, including data that could identify users at risk for gambling disorder, but did not use that data to intervene in a meaningful way. The lawsuits claim that the defendants had the technological capability to detect patterns of harmful gambling and to proactively limit access or provide resources, but chose not to, because doing so would reduce revenue.
Why Your Doctor May Not Have Told You
Gambling disorder is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Many primary care physicians do not screen for it, in part because they are not trained to recognize the signs, and in part because patients do not volunteer the information due to shame. Even when a diagnosis is made, the focus is often on individual treatment, counseling, and behavior modification, without an exploration of the environmental factors that contributed to the disorder.
Your doctor may not have told you about the design features of sports betting apps because that information is not widely disseminated in medical literature aimed at clinicians. The research exists, but it is published in specialized journals on gambling studies, behavioral psychology, and public health, not in the continuing education materials that most doctors rely on. There is also no centralized system for reporting adverse events related to gambling apps, the way there is for pharmaceutical drugs or medical devices, so doctors do not receive safety alerts or updates about emerging risks.
The lawsuits allege that the companies did little to educate healthcare providers about the risks of their platforms. According to the complaints, the defendants did not issue warnings, did not fund independent research into the harms associated with their apps, and did not partner with public health organizations to develop screening tools or treatment resources. The filings claim that this silence was strategic, intended to keep the focus on individual responsibility and to avoid scrutiny of the product design itself.
The complaints also allege that the companies benefited from a regulatory environment that treated sports betting primarily as a revenue opportunity for states, rather than as a public health issue. According to the lawsuits, the speed with which sports betting was legalized across the country, and the limited attention paid to harm reduction measures, meant that there was no robust public awareness campaign about the risks, no mandatory warning labels, and no requirement that companies disclose the behavioral design features built into their apps.
Who Is Affected
If you used a sports betting app like DraftKings, FanDuel, or BetMGM and developed gambling disorder, you are not alone. Thousands of people have had the same experience. The lawsuits describe a pattern of harm that cuts across demographics: people who had never had a gambling problem before, people who thought they were just having fun, people who downloaded the app because of an ad they saw during a game.
The typical profile is not what you might expect. Many of the people affected are not longtime gamblers. They are people who were drawn in by the convenience, the integration with sports they already loved, the social aspect of betting with friends. They are people who would not have gone to a casino, but who found it easy to place a bet from the couch, from the office, from the car.
The timeline varies. Some people report feeling loss of control within weeks of starting to use the app. Others describe a gradual escalation over months or years. What is consistent is the speed and severity of the financial and emotional harm once the disorder takes hold. People describe losing tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes hundreds of thousands. They describe debts they cannot pay, relationships they cannot repair, and a sense of having been caught in something they did not understand until it was too late.
If you found yourself unable to stop using the app even when you wanted to, if you lied to people about how much you were betting, if you chased losses or bet money you could not afford to lose, if the app became a source of obsession and distress rather than entertainment, you may meet the criteria for gambling disorder. That diagnosis is not a personal failure. It is a recognized medical condition, and according to the lawsuits, it may be the predictable result of using a product that was designed to exploit the vulnerabilities in human decision-making.
Where Things Stand
Lawsuits against DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM have been filed in multiple states, alleging claims including negligence, product liability, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and unjust enrichment. The complaints argue that the companies failed to warn users about the addiction risks of their platforms, that they designed features known to accelerate the development of gambling disorder, and that they targeted vulnerable users with marketing and promotions calculated to exploit compulsive behavior.
As of early 2025, these cases are in various stages of litigation. Some are in the initial pleading phase, where courts are deciding whether the claims are sufficient to proceed. Others are in discovery, where plaintiffs are seeking internal documents, communications, and data that may show what the companies knew and when they knew it. The legal theories being advanced are similar to those that have succeeded in other product liability cases involving addictive products, including tobacco, opioids, and social media platforms.
There have not yet been large-scale settlements or verdicts in these cases, but the litigation is moving forward. Courts in several jurisdictions have declined to dismiss the complaints at the early stages, finding that the allegations, if proven, could support liability. That is a significant development, because it means that the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to conduct discovery and to build their case with evidence from inside the companies.
The timeline for resolution is uncertain. Product liability cases, particularly those involving complex behavioral science and corporate decision-making, can take years to reach trial. But the filing of these lawsuits has already had an effect. It has brought public attention to the design of sports betting apps and the risks they pose. It has prompted some legislators to call for stronger regulation and better protections for users. And it has created a record, in court filings and in public discourse, of what these companies knew and what they chose to do with that knowledge.
If you believe you were harmed by a sports betting app, you may have legal options. The viability of a claim depends on many factors, including where you live, when you used the app, and the specifics of your experience. Consulting with an attorney who handles product liability or consumer protection cases can help you understand whether your situation fits within the scope of the ongoing litigation.
What happened to you was not random. It was not a matter of bad luck or weak will. According to the lawsuits now moving through the courts, it was the result of decisions made by companies that had access to decades of research on addiction, that employed experts who understood how to manipulate behavior, and that chose to build platforms optimized for engagement even when that engagement came at the cost of devastating harm to users. You were not supposed to be able to resist. That was the point. The design worked exactly as intended.
You are not responsible for what these companies built. But you are not powerless, either. The legal system is now examining what they knew, what they did, and what they owe to the people whose lives were upended by the products they designed. This fight is not over. And the outcome may help ensure that what happened to you does not happen to anyone else.