You told yourself it was just a hobby. A way to make the game more interesting. Five dollars here, ten dollars there, placed during commercials or on your lunch break. The app made it feel less like gambling and more like a game itself, with its bright colors and instant notifications and the way it celebrated when you won. You remember the exact moment you realized something had changed. Maybe it was when you checked your bank account and saw the overdraft, or when you lied to your partner about where the money went, or when you found yourself betting on sports you had never watched before, at three in the morning, unable to sleep, unable to stop. Your doctor used the term gambling disorder, and you felt a wave of shame so profound you could barely meet their eyes. You thought this was a personal failing, a lack of willpower, something broken in your character that made you unable to control yourself when everyone else seemed to manage just fine.
But what your doctor may not have told you is that the platform you were using was designed by teams of behavioral psychologists and data scientists who studied exactly how to maximize something called engagement. They tested features, tracked metrics, and refined algorithms with the specific goal of keeping you in the app longer and getting you to place more bets. The notifications that pinged at just the right moment. The free bets that appeared when you were about to stop. The cash-out button that let you settle a bet early, turning every wager into a dozen micro-decisions. The parlays that promised huge payouts from small stakes. These were not accidental features. According to lawsuits now filed against DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM, these were deliberate design choices, tested and optimized, that the companies allegedly knew could contribute to addictive behavior.
What happened to you was not a personal failure. It was not bad luck or weak character. Court filings allege it was the predictable result of a business model that relied on a small percentage of users losing large amounts of money, and a set of design features that research has linked to the development of gambling disorder. This is what the lawsuits claim. This is what the science shows. And this is what the companies allegedly knew.
What Happened
Gambling disorder is not about liking gambling too much. It is a pattern of behavior that overtakes your life in ways that feel, to the people experiencing it, completely out of their control. It starts with preoccupation. You find yourself thinking about betting when you are supposed to be working, or spending time with family, or trying to fall asleep. You start planning your next bet, replaying your last loss, calculating how you could win it back. The thoughts become intrusive, unwelcome, but persistent.
Then comes the tolerance. The same five-dollar bet that used to give you a thrill stops feeling like enough. You start betting larger amounts, or placing more bets, or choosing riskier parlays, chasing that initial feeling. You tell yourself you will stop after you win, but when you win, it does not feel like enough. You keep going. And when you lose, you cannot walk away. You feel an overwhelming urge to place another bet immediately, to win back what you just lost, to make it right. This is called chasing losses, and it is one of the hallmark signs of gambling disorder.
You start lying. Small lies at first, about where you are or what you are doing on your phone. Then bigger lies, about money. You might take out loans, drain savings accounts, or borrow from friends and family with explanations that sound plausible in the moment but that you know are not the full truth. You feel a constant, gnawing anxiety about money, but the anxiety does not stop you from betting. Sometimes it makes the urge worse, because winning feels like the only way out.
Your relationships suffer. Partners, children, friends notice you are distracted, irritable, unavailable. You miss events because you are betting. You snap at people who ask questions. You withdraw, not because you do not care, but because the shame is unbearable and you do not know how to explain what is happening. Some people lose their jobs. Others lose their homes. Many describe feeling as though they are living a double life, projecting normalcy while drowning in secret debt and compulsive behavior they cannot control.
The emotional toll is severe. Depression and anxiety are common. Many people with gambling disorder experience suicidal thoughts. The shame is crushing, because gambling is still widely seen as a moral failure rather than a behavioral disorder. People blame themselves entirely, even as they find themselves unable to stop despite devastating consequences. This is not a lack of willpower. It is a diagnosable disorder with neurological underpinnings, and according to the lawsuits, it is a condition that sports betting companies allegedly designed their platforms to exploit.
The Connection
Sports betting apps are different from traditional gambling in ways that research suggests make them significantly more addictive. The difference is not just convenience, though that matters. The difference is in the design, the speed, the frequency, and the behavioral techniques embedded in every aspect of the user experience.
First, there is the issue of speed. Traditional sports betting meant placing a wager before a game started and waiting hours for the outcome. Modern sports betting apps offer in-game betting, where you can place dozens of wagers during a single game on things like the next play, the next score, the next timeout. A study published in the International Gambling Studies journal in 2020 found that continuous gambling with rapid bet-to-outcome cycles is associated with higher rates of problem gambling. The faster the cycle, the more opportunities for the dopamine hit of a potential win, and the less time for reflective decision-making.
Second, there is the psychological principle of near misses. Sports betting apps often display your potential winnings in real time, showing you how close you are to a big payout even when you are losing. A parlay bet might have five legs, and if four hit and one loses, the app often emphasizes how close you came. Research published in the Journal of Gambling Studies in 2019 found that near misses activate the same reward pathways in the brain as actual wins, creating a sense of almost succeeding that drives continued play. The lawsuits allege that sports betting companies understood this research and designed their platforms accordingly.
Third, there are the push notifications. These are not random. According to court filings, betting apps use sophisticated algorithms to determine when you are most likely to place a bet, and send notifications at those exact moments. If you have not logged in for a few days, you might get a free bet offer. If you just lost, you might get a promotion. If a game you have bet on before is about to start, you get a reminder. A 2021 study in the journal Addictive Behaviors found that gambling-related push notifications were significantly associated with increased gambling frequency and problem gambling severity.
Fourth, there is the illusion of control. Sports betting feels less like chance than slot machines or roulette because it involves knowledge of sports. You study the stats, follow the teams, analyze the matchups. The apps encourage this by providing detailed statistics, expert picks, and analysis tools. But research has consistently shown that in sports betting, as in all gambling, the house has an edge and long-term winning is statistically improbable for the vast majority of bettors. A 2022 study published in the Journal of Behavioral Addictions found that gamblers who believed they had skill or control over outcomes were more likely to develop gambling problems, because they attributed losses to correctable errors rather than to the fundamental structure of the game. The lawsuits allege that sports betting companies deliberately fostered this illusion.
Fifth, there are features like cash-out, which allow you to settle a bet before the event concludes. This sounds like a risk management tool, but according to research published in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors in 2021, cash-out features increase the number of micro-decisions a gambler makes during a single event, and each decision is an opportunity for continued engagement and further betting. The feature also creates additional anxiety and cognitive load, as users constantly evaluate whether to cash out or let it ride.
Finally, there is the normalization. Sports betting apps advertise aggressively, partner with major sports leagues, and integrate themselves into sports media coverage. They frame betting as a normal part of being a sports fan. This is not an accident. According to lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions, internal company data allegedly showed that users who began betting casually often progressed to problematic levels of use, and that a small percentage of users, those with gambling disorder or at high risk of developing it, accounted for a disproportionate share of company revenue. The lawsuits allege the companies knew this, tracked this, and made design decisions to maximize revenue from this vulnerable population.
What The Lawsuits Allege They Knew
Court filings against DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM allege that these companies had access to extensive research on gambling addiction and behavioral design, and that they made deliberate choices based on that knowledge. These allegations have not been adjudicated, and the companies deny wrongdoing, but the claims are now part of the public record in multiple jurisdictions.
The lawsuits cite the broader gambling industry knowledge base. For decades, casinos and gambling companies have employed behavioral psychologists and studied the mechanisms of addiction. Academic research on gambling disorder has been published since the 1980s, and gambling disorder has been recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders since 1980, initially as pathological gambling and later reclassified. By the time sports betting apps launched in the United States following the 2018 Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. NCAA, the risk factors for gambling disorder were well established in scientific literature.
According to complaints filed in 2023 and 2024, DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM each hired teams that included experts in behavioral psychology, user experience design, and data analytics. The lawsuits allege that these teams studied user behavior to identify features that maximized engagement, which in the context of gambling, means time spent on the app and money wagered. Plaintiffs point to the companies' own marketing materials and investor presentations, which allegedly emphasized metrics like customer lifetime value, retention rates, and frequency of play.
One key allegation involves the targeting of vulnerable users. The lawsuits claim that the companies used data analytics to identify users who were exhibiting signs of problem gambling, such as frequent large deposits, betting at unusual hours, chasing losses, or repeatedly exhausting their account balances and immediately reloading. Rather than intervening or restricting these accounts, the complaints allege, the companies often targeted these users with promotions and bonuses designed to keep them active. Court filings cite internal data analyses and promotional targeting algorithms as evidence, though the specific documents are subject to ongoing discovery.
The complaints also allege that the companies were aware of research showing the addictive potential of specific features. Plaintiffs cite academic studies published between 2015 and 2022 on topics including in-play betting, push notifications, cash-out features, and parlay bets. The lawsuits claim that the companies had access to this research, either through their own behavioral science teams or through industry conferences and publications. Some complaints specifically allege that the companies conducted internal testing on feature designs and selected the versions that maximized user engagement, even when engagement metrics correlated with markers of problem gambling.
One lawsuit filed in 2024 alleges that FanDuel possessed internal research as early as 2020 showing that a significant percentage of its revenue came from users who met screening criteria for gambling disorder. The complaint claims that rather than implementing meaningful interventions, the company focused on responsible gambling messaging that placed the burden entirely on the user, while continuing to deploy design features that the research indicated could contribute to addictive behavior. FanDuel has denied these allegations and moved to dismiss the case.
Another complaint, filed against DraftKings in 2023, alleges that the company tracked user behavior in granular detail and used machine learning algorithms to predict which users were at risk of stopping play. The lawsuit claims that users identified as at-risk of churning, including some who were cutting back due to financial or personal concerns, were then targeted with promotions and free bets designed to re-engage them. DraftKings has disputed this characterization and argued that its responsible gaming tools are robust and accessible.
Lawsuits against BetMGM make similar claims, alleging that the company prioritized growth and revenue over user welfare, and that its responsible gaming measures were inadequate given the scale of the problem. One complaint cites testimony from former employees, though these accounts remain contested and have not been verified in court. BetMGM has stated that it takes responsible gaming seriously and complies fully with all regulatory requirements.
The lawsuits also allege that the companies lobbied extensively to shape the regulatory environment for online sports betting. According to court filings, the companies and their industry associations spent millions on lobbying efforts in state legislatures between 2018 and 2023, advocating for regulations that plaintiffs claim were more favorable to industry growth than to consumer protection. The complaints point to regulatory frameworks in some states that allegedly lack robust affordability checks, mandatory time limits, or requirements for real-time intervention when users exhibit signs of problem gambling. The companies argue that they operate in compliance with all state regulations and that regulatory standards are set by legislatures and gaming commissions, not by the companies themselves.
What The Lawsuits Say About Concealment
In addition to allegations about what the companies knew, the lawsuits also make claims about what they did not disclose. These are allegations being litigated, not established facts, but they form a core part of the plaintiffs' legal theory.
The complaints allege that while the companies included responsible gaming links and disclaimers in their apps and advertising, these measures were insufficient and, in some cases, deliberately designed to be inconspicuous. Plaintiffs claim that responsible gaming tools such as deposit limits or self-exclusion options were buried in settings menus, required multiple steps to activate, and were not proactively offered to users showing signs of problem gambling. The lawsuits contrast this with the prominence of promotional offers and betting opportunities, which were allegedly placed front and center in the user interface.
Some complaints allege that the companies funded or promoted research that minimized the risks of online sports betting or emphasized user responsibility over platform design. These allegations point to industry-funded studies and public statements by company executives and industry trade groups. Plaintiffs claim that this messaging created a public perception that problem gambling was rare and entirely within user control, rather than a predictable outcome of certain design features. The companies dispute this characterization and point to their financial support of problem gambling research and treatment programs.
The lawsuits also allege that the companies used targeted advertising to reach young adults and people with lower incomes, populations that research has identified as at higher risk for gambling disorder. Complaints cite advertising placements, sponsorship deals, and promotional offers that allegedly appealed to these demographics. The companies respond that their advertising complies with all applicable laws and industry standards, and that they do not knowingly target vulnerable populations.
One area of alleged concealment involves the true odds and expected losses. The lawsuits claim that while the apps display potential winnings prominently, they do not clearly communicate the statistical likelihood of long-term losses. Some complaints allege that the companies used interface design choices, such as showing potential parlay payouts in large font and odds or probabilities in small font or not at all, to create a misleading impression of the chances of winning. The companies argue that odds are displayed in accordance with industry standards and regulatory requirements.
Another claim involves data privacy. Some lawsuits allege that the companies collected extensive data on user behavior, including behavioral patterns that could indicate problem gambling, but did not disclose the extent of this data collection or how it was used. The complaints suggest that users were not fully informed that their betting patterns were being analyzed to optimize the platform for continued engagement. The companies state that their data practices are disclosed in their privacy policies and comply with applicable laws.
Why Your Doctor May Not Have Told You
When you were using a sports betting app, it is unlikely that your primary care doctor asked you about it. Gambling disorder is underdiagnosed and undertreated, in part because many healthcare providers do not routinely screen for it. Medical education programs typically spend little time on gambling disorder compared to substance use disorders, and there is less awareness of the condition among general practitioners.
The rapid expansion of legal online sports betting has also outpaced the medical community's response. Legal sports betting was restricted to Nevada for decades, and only became widely available in other states starting in 2018. Many doctors are simply not yet attuned to the risks, especially for patients who would never have visited a casino but who now have access to gambling in their pocket twenty-four hours a day.
There is also the issue of how risk information reaches doctors. Pharmaceutical companies are required to provide detailed safety information to prescribers, and there are regulatory mechanisms for updating warnings as new risks emerge. No comparable system exists for consumer apps. Sports betting companies provide responsible gaming information on their websites, but there is no requirement that they proactively inform healthcare providers about the prevalence of gambling disorder among users or the design features that research has linked to increased risk.
The lawsuits allege that this gap in communication is not accidental. The complaints claim that the companies have an interest in framing problem gambling as a rare occurrence affecting only a small number of predisposed individuals, rather than as a predictable consequence of certain platform features. According to the court filings, this framing keeps the focus on user responsibility and away from industry practices. The result, plaintiffs argue, is that doctors do not know what questions to ask, and patients do not know that what they are experiencing might be connected to the design of the platform they are using.
Some lawsuits also allege that the companies have emphasized technological solutions, such as optional deposit limits or time-out features, while allegedly designing the core platform in ways that encourage excessive use. The complaints claim this creates a disconnect: the companies point to responsible gaming tools as evidence of their commitment to player welfare, but the tools are allegedly not sufficient to counteract the behavioral design of the platform itself, and doctors are not aware of this tension.
If your doctor did not talk to you about the risks of sports betting apps, it is not because your doctor did not care. It is because the information flow between the gambling industry and the healthcare system is minimal, and because gambling disorder has historically been stigmatized and underrecognized. The lawsuits allege that the companies could have done more to educate the public and the medical community about the risks, but chose not to in order to protect their business interests.
Who Is Affected
If you developed a gambling problem after using DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM, or another online sports betting app, you are not alone, and what happened to you fits a pattern that the lawsuits describe.
You might have started betting after these apps became legal in your state, which for most states was sometime between 2018 and 2023. You might have seen the advertisements during sports broadcasts, or heard the promotional offers, or been invited by a friend. The first few bets might have felt harmless. Maybe you won early on, which made it feel easy. Or maybe you lost but felt confident you could win it back.
Over time, your betting increased. You might have started betting more frequently, on more games, or with larger amounts. You might have begun using features like live in-game betting or parlays. You might have found yourself thinking about betting when you were not actively doing it, planning your next bet or replaying your losses. You might have tried to stop or cut back and found that you could not, or that you could only stop temporarily before being drawn back in.
You might have experienced financial consequences. Depleted savings, credit card debt, loans, or borrowing from family. You might have missed bill payments or faced overdraft fees. The financial damage might have been gradual or sudden, but either way, it likely reached a point where it affected your ability to meet basic obligations.
You might have experienced relationship consequences. Arguments with a partner or family members about money or the amount of time you spent on your phone. Lying about your betting or your financial situation. Withdrawal from social activities or responsibilities. In some cases, separations or divorce.
You might have experienced emotional consequences. Anxiety, depression, shame, hopelessness. Thoughts of self-harm. A pervasive sense that you had lost control and did not know how to get it back.
If this describes your experience, the lawsuits now being filed allege that what happened to you was not simply a matter of personal choice, but the result of platform design features that research has linked to gambling disorder. The litigation is focused on people who used these apps and developed gambling disorder, particularly in cases where the person had no prior history of gambling problems or used the responsible gaming tools available but still experienced harm.
Where Things Stand
As of 2024, multiple lawsuits have been filed against DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM in state and federal courts. These cases are in the early stages. Some are individual lawsuits, while others seek class action status. The legal theories vary but generally include claims of negligence, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and failure to warn. Some complaints also allege violations of state consumer protection laws.
The companies have filed motions to dismiss many of these cases, arguing that they are not liable for user behavior, that they comply with all applicable regulations, and that users are adequately warned about the risks of gambling. Some courts have allowed cases to proceed to discovery, while others have dismissed claims on procedural or legal grounds. The litigation is evolving, and outcomes vary by jurisdiction.
There have not yet been any major settlements or verdicts in these cases, though similar litigation in other industries, such as opioids and social media, has shown that cases alleging design-based harms can take years to resolve. The discovery process, where plaintiffs seek internal company documents and data, is ongoing in several cases and may reveal additional information about company knowledge and practices.
State and federal regulators are also paying increasing attention to online sports betting. Some states have proposed or implemented stricter regulations on advertising, deposit limits, and responsible gaming tools. Congressional hearings have been held on the issue, and some lawmakers have called for federal oversight. However, the regulatory landscape remains fragmented, with each state setting its own rules.
For individuals considering legal action, the timeline and process vary by state. Some states have statutes of limitations that may affect eligibility to file, depending on when the gambling activity occurred and when the harm became apparent. Legal consultation can help clarify individual circumstances, but it is important to understand that this litigation is in its early stages and outcomes are uncertain.
What is clear from the lawsuits filed to date is that the legal theory is not that sports betting itself is inherently unlawful, but that specific design features and company practices allegedly crossed the line from offering a product to exploiting behavioral vulnerabilities in ways that caused foreseeable harm.
You did not fail. You were not weak. What happened to you was not the result of a character flaw or a lack of discipline. According to the lawsuits now being filed, it was the result of a platform designed by teams of experts who studied how to keep you engaged, how to bring you back when you tried to leave, and how to maximize the money you spent. They tested features, tracked your behavior, and refined their systems to optimize for their revenue, allegedly knowing that for some users, that optimization would lead to financial ruin, broken relationships, and profound psychological harm.
The science is clear that certain design features increase the risk of gambling disorder. The lawsuits allege that the companies knew this science, had access to research, and made choices anyway. Whether those allegations will be proven in court remains to be seen, but the fact that they are being made, in multiple jurisdictions, by people whose lives were upended, tells you something important: you are not alone, and what happened to you was not random. It was a pattern, documented now in court filings, recognized by researchers, and finally being called what the lawsuits say it was all along: a business decision that put profit over people.