You started placing a bet during commercial breaks. Then between innings. Then during timeouts, and eventually between pitches. The app was right there on your phone, bright and inviting, offering a hundred different ways to bet on a game you were already watching. It felt like being more involved, more engaged with sports you had always loved. When you won, the app celebrated with you—animations, sounds, instant credit to place another bet. When you lost, a push notification arrived within minutes: boosted odds, risk-free bet, a special offer just for you. No one used the word gambling. It was sports betting, skill-based, a game.
What your brain was experiencing was something else entirely. Every bet triggered a dopamine response. Every notification activated your reward system. Every near-miss—those bets that almost hit, the parlay that missed by half a point—created the same neural pattern as a win, driving you to bet again. You did not know that the app tracked every bet you placed, every game you watched, every moment you hesitated, and used that data to send you the exact promotion at the exact moment you were most vulnerable. You did not know that the features you thought made betting fun—cash-out options, live in-game betting, instant deposit—were the same features researchers have identified as maximizing addiction potential.
When you finally recognized what was happening, when your savings were gone and your relationships were fractured and you could not make it through a Sunday without betting, you assumed this was a personal failure. A lack of willpower. A character flaw. What you are learning now is that the experience you had was not accidental. It was, according to multiple lawsuits filed across the country, the result of deliberate design decisions made by companies who had access to research about gambling disorder and who built their platforms to maximize engagement even when that engagement became compulsive.
What Happened
Gambling disorder is a behavioral addiction recognized by the American Psychiatric Association. It follows the same patterns as substance addiction: tolerance, where you need to bet more to get the same feeling; withdrawal, where you feel anxious or irritable when you cannot bet; loss of control, where you cannot stop even when you want to; and continued use despite consequences, where you keep betting even as your finances collapse and your relationships suffer.
People with gambling disorder describe it as an overwhelming compulsion. They think about betting constantly. They chase losses, convinced the next bet will make them whole. They lie to family members about how much they have lost. They drain savings accounts, max out credit cards, borrow money they cannot repay. The disorder does not just cause financial harm. It is associated with severe anxiety, depression, and one of the highest suicide rates of any psychiatric condition.
For many people now filing lawsuits, gambling disorder developed after sports betting became legal in their state and they downloaded an app. They had watched sports their entire lives without problems. Some had never gambled before. What changed was not them. What changed was access—instant, frictionless, continuous access through a device they carried everywhere, designed by companies that employed behavioral psychologists and data scientists to maximize the time and money users spent on the platform.
The Connection
Sports betting apps create gambling disorder through a combination of design features, marketing practices, and algorithmic personalization that addiction researchers have identified as high-risk.
First, the apps eliminate friction. Traditional gambling required a trip to a casino or a phone call to a bookie. Mobile betting allows users to place bets in seconds, from anywhere, at any time. A 2020 study published in the journal Addictive Behaviors found that ease of access and speed of play are among the strongest predictors of gambling problems. The faster the cycle between bet and outcome, the more addictive the activity becomes.
Second, the apps offer continuous gambling opportunities. Unlike traditional sports betting, where you might place a bet before a game, mobile apps allow live in-game betting on hundreds of micro-events: the next pitch, the next play, the next minute of game time. This creates a continuous loop of wagering. Research published in the International Gambling Studies journal in 2019 found that continuous forms of gambling, where there is minimal delay between stake and outcome, are significantly more addictive than non-continuous forms.
Third, the apps use variable reward schedules. You do not win every time, and you cannot predict when you will win, which is precisely the condition that behavioral psychology research—dating back to B.F. Skinner in the 1950s—has shown creates the most persistent behavior. Slot machines work on the same principle. The uncertainty drives compulsive play.
Fourth, the apps deploy personalization algorithms. They track your betting patterns, your win-loss ratio, the times of day you bet, the types of bets you favor, and how you respond to promotions. They use this data to send targeted offers designed to bring you back to the app. A 2021 study in the Journal of Gambling Studies found that personalized gambling inducements increase both the frequency and intensity of gambling behavior, particularly among people already showing signs of problem gambling.
Fifth, the apps create the illusion of control and skill. Betting markets are presented with statistics, expert picks, and real-time data. Users feel they are making informed decisions based on knowledge. But sports outcomes remain fundamentally unpredictable. Research has shown that this illusion of control increases betting frequency and makes users more likely to chase losses, believing their next bet will be smarter, better informed.
Finally, near-misses are built into the experience. A parlay that goes 4-for-5. A point spread that misses by half a point. These near-misses activate the same reward pathways in the brain as wins. A 2018 study published in Biological Psychiatry found that near-misses in gambling recruit the same neural circuitry as actual wins, driving continued play despite net losses. The apps know this. The platforms offer hundreds of bet types, many with narrow margins, engineered to generate frequent near-miss experiences.
What The Lawsuits Allege They Knew
Lawsuits filed against DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM allege that these companies were aware of gambling addiction research and designed their platforms to exploit the psychological vulnerabilities that research identified.
The complaints cite the fact that all three companies hired behavioral scientists, data analysts, and user experience designers whose job was to increase engagement and maximize the time users spent on the app. According to the lawsuits, these design decisions were not made in ignorance of addiction risk but with knowledge of the substantial body of research linking specific gambling features to disordered gambling.
The lawsuits point to the years leading up to the Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. NCAA in 2018, which struck down the federal ban on sports betting and allowed states to legalize it. According to court filings, DraftKings and FanDuel were operating daily fantasy sports platforms as early as 2009 and 2012, respectively. The complaints allege that both companies were collecting data on user behavior during this period and were aware that a subset of users exhibited problem gambling patterns, including chasing losses, increasing bet frequency, and betting beyond their means.
Plaintiffs cite the existence of responsible gaming pages on each company website, which they argue demonstrates that the companies were aware of gambling disorder as a risk. According to the lawsuits, these responsible gaming tools—self-exclusion options, deposit limits, time-out features—were buried in user settings and not prominently offered, even to users whose betting patterns showed clear warning signs.
Court filings also reference public statements made by company executives. In a 2021 earnings call, according to documents cited in the litigation, a DraftKings executive discussed metrics related to monthly active users and average revenue per user, highlighting the importance of increasing user engagement. The lawsuits allege that this focus on engagement, measured by time on platform and frequency of bets, prioritized revenue over user welfare.
The complaints further allege that the companies had access to research from international jurisdictions where mobile betting had already been legalized. A 2017 study from Australia, published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior, found that smartphone betting was associated with higher rates of gambling problems compared to online computer-based gambling, and that push notifications were a significant risk factor. The lawsuits allege that the companies were aware of this research as they designed their U.S. platforms.
According to the litigation, internal data would have shown the companies which users were betting most frequently, losing the most money, and returning to the app most compulsively. The lawsuits allege that rather than flagging these users for intervention, the companies targeted them with additional promotions. Court filings claim that the algorithms were designed to identify high-value users—those who bet frequently and in large amounts—and send them personalized offers to maximize revenue, even when those users were exhibiting signs of gambling disorder.
Plaintiffs also point to the marketing practices the companies employed. Lawsuits allege that DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising that normalized sports betting, partnered with professional sports leagues and teams, and enlisted celebrity endorsers to promote their apps. According to the complaints, this marketing was designed to make betting seem safe, mainstream, and skill-based, without adequate disclosure of addiction risk.
What The Lawsuits Say About Concealment
The lawsuits allege that the companies concealed the addictive nature of their platforms and failed to disclose known risks to users.
According to court filings, the apps do not warn users at the point of download or at the point of placing a bet that the design features of the platform—live betting, push notifications, personalized offers—are associated with increased addiction risk. The complaints allege that this omission was intentional, driven by concern that such warnings would reduce user engagement and revenue.
Plaintiffs allege that the companies concealed the extent to which algorithms were personalizing the user experience. According to the lawsuits, users were not informed that the promotions they received were targeted based on behavioral data indicating vulnerability. The complaints claim that users believed the offers were random or available to all users, when in fact they were generated by machine learning models designed to maximize betting frequency among users most likely to respond.
The litigation also alleges that the companies failed to implement adequate responsible gaming interventions despite having data that could identify at-risk users. Court filings claim that the platforms could have used the same algorithms that targeted users with promotions to instead identify problem gambling behavior and trigger automatic interventions—mandatory cooling-off periods, deposit limits, or direct outreach from responsible gaming teams. The lawsuits allege that the companies chose not to implement these features because doing so would reduce revenue from their highest-spending users.
Some complaints reference the regulatory environment, alleging that the companies lobbied state legislatures for favorable regulatory treatment and minimal responsible gaming requirements. According to court filings, the companies advocated for self-regulation and opposed measures such as mandatory bet limits, pre-commitment tools, and prominent warning labels. Plaintiffs allege this lobbying effort was designed to preserve a business model the companies knew was generating gambling addiction.
The lawsuits further allege that the companies used terms of service agreements and mandatory arbitration clauses to prevent users from pursuing legal claims in court. According to the complaints, these agreements were presented at sign-up in dense legal language that users did not read or understand, effectively concealing the legal rights users were waiving.
Why Your Doctor May Not Have Told You
Gambling disorder is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Most primary care doctors do not screen for it. Mental health professionals receive limited training on behavioral addictions. The result is that many people suffering from gambling disorder do not receive a diagnosis until the harm is severe.
Part of the reason is that gambling disorder was only formally recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1980, and was only reclassified from an impulse control disorder to an addiction in 2013. The research base is still evolving, and clinical guidelines for screening and treatment are not as well established as they are for substance use disorders.
Another reason is the rapid expansion of mobile sports betting. In 2018, when the Supreme Court opened the door for states to legalize sports betting, only a handful of states allowed it. By 2023, more than thirty states had legalized mobile sports betting. The transition happened faster than the public health infrastructure could respond. Doctors in states where betting was newly legal had little guidance on what to tell patients.
The lawsuits allege that the companies did nothing to close this gap. According to court filings, the platforms could have provided educational materials to healthcare providers, funded public health campaigns about gambling disorder, or required users to review risk information before opening an account. The complaints allege that the companies chose not to take these steps because widespread awareness of addiction risk would have threatened the user growth and engagement metrics that drove their stock valuations.
The litigation also points to the normalization of sports betting through advertising and sports league partnerships. When betting is promoted during game broadcasts, integrated into sports commentary, and endorsed by trusted athletes, it sends a message that the activity is safe and mainstream. According to the lawsuits, this marketing environment made it less likely that doctors, family members, or users themselves would recognize problem gambling as a serious medical condition rather than a personal failing.
Who Is Affected
You may have developed gambling disorder if you used a mobile sports betting app and experienced any of the following: an inability to stop or cut back on betting even when you wanted to; increasing the amount you bet over time to achieve the same excitement; feeling restless or irritable when you tried to stop; lying to family or friends about the extent of your betting; jeopardizing relationships, employment, or financial stability because of betting; relying on others to provide money to cover gambling losses; or returning to the app after a loss to try to get even, sometimes called chasing.
The disorder can develop quickly. Some people report going from casual weekend betting to daily compulsive betting within months. Others describe a gradual escalation over a year or more. The timeline varies, but the pattern is consistent: initial wins or excitement, increasing frequency of betting, losses that trigger more betting, mounting financial and emotional consequences, and inability to stop despite wanting to.
You do not need to have lost a specific amount of money. You do not need to have gambled every day. The diagnosis is based on loss of control and continued use despite harm. If betting on sports apps has caused significant distress or impairment in your life, you may meet the criteria.
People filing lawsuits include those who had no prior history of gambling problems, those who had gambled recreationally in the past without issue, and those who developed disorder shortly after mobile betting became available in their state. Some are young adults who started betting in college. Others are middle-aged professionals who had stable lives before downloading an app. The common thread is not demographics or personal history. It is exposure to a platform that the lawsuits allege was designed to be addictive.
Where Things Stand
Lawsuits against DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM have been filed in multiple states, with plaintiffs alleging negligence, failure to warn, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and violations of consumer protection statutes. The cases are in various stages of litigation. Some are proceeding in state courts. Others are being argued in federal court.
The companies have moved to dismiss many of the lawsuits, arguing that they are not liable for user losses and that gambling disorder is a known risk of any gambling activity. As of this writing, courts have issued mixed rulings on motions to dismiss. Some cases have survived early challenges and are moving toward discovery, where plaintiffs will seek internal company documents, communications, and data related to platform design and user targeting.
No major settlements have been announced, and no cases have gone to trial. The litigation is in its early stages. Legal experts expect that the discovery process will be critical, as plaintiffs seek to obtain evidence of what the companies knew about addiction risk and how they used that knowledge in designing their apps and marketing their services.
Additional cases continue to be filed as more individuals recognize their gambling disorder and learn about the allegations against the companies. Attorneys representing plaintiffs have indicated that they are reviewing claims from users across the country. The legal theories being advanced are similar to those used in litigation against tobacco companies, opioid manufacturers, and social media platforms: that the companies designed a product to be addictive, knew it was addictive, and failed to warn users or implement adequate safeguards.
The outcome of these cases will depend on what internal documents reveal, what experts testify about the relationship between app design and addiction, and how courts interpret the companies duty of care to users. The litigation is expected to take years to resolve.
What This Means
If you developed gambling disorder after using a sports betting app, what happened to you was not a personal failure. It was not a lack of discipline or a moral weakness. You were using a product that, according to the lawsuits, was deliberately engineered to keep you engaged, to make you bet more frequently, and to bring you back to the platform even when you were losing.
The companies behind these apps had access to decades of research on gambling addiction. They employed experts who understood how the brain responds to variable rewards, how algorithms can exploit behavioral data, and how removing friction increases compulsive use. The lawsuits allege that they used this knowledge not to protect users but to maximize profit. They built platforms that turned casual sports fans into compulsive gamblers, and they did it in a way that made you believe the problem was yours.
It was not. The problem was the design. And the allegations now being litigated in courtrooms across the country may finally bring that design into the light.