Timeline of Sports Betting Addiction Litigation
Lawsuits alleging that sports betting apps contributed to gambling addiction have been filed in several states since 2025. The cases remain separate, with no coordinated proceeding or multidistrict litigation. This page walks through the court record in chronological order and explains where each case stands.
Background: Medical Definition and Legal Landscape
Gambling disorder has been a recognized medical diagnosis since May 2013, when it was included in the DSM-5 published by the American Psychiatric Association.[1] It is classified in the chapter on Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders and is the only non-substance addictive disorder endorsed as a diagnosis in the DSM-5.[1] A diagnosis requires persistent and recurrent problematic gambling leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, shown by at least four of nine listed criteria within a 12-month period.[1] The existence of a diagnosis does not mean any court has found that a product caused it.[1]
In May 2018, the legal landscape for sports betting changed when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476.[2] The Court struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, the 1992 federal law that had barred most states from legalizing sports betting.[2] The decision cleared the way for each state to set its own rules.[2]
April 2025: Baltimore Files Consumer Protection Lawsuit
On April 3, 2025, the City of Baltimore sued DraftKings and Flutter Entertainment, the parent company of FanDuel, in Baltimore City Circuit Court.[3] The complaint alleges the companies use misleading promotions such as bonus bets to attract bettors and then use data and analytics to keep problem gamblers betting, in violation of the city's Consumer Protection Ordinance.[3] The city seeks statutory penalties and a court order requiring the companies to stop targeting people with gambling disorders.[3] FanDuel said it does not comment on pending litigation and that it is confident it operates in accordance with all laws, including those enforced by Maryland's Lottery and Gaming Control Commission.[3] DraftKings did not provide a statement.[3] These are allegations, and no court has ruled on them.[3]
May 2025: Baltimore Case Removed to Federal Court
On May 7, 2025, the defendants removed Baltimore's lawsuit from state court to the U.S. District Court in Maryland on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.[4] Diversity jurisdiction allows a case to be moved to federal court when the parties are from different states and the amount in controversy meets a threshold. Baltimore said it would ask for the case to be sent back to the Circuit Court.[4]
July 2025: Pennsylvania Class Action Filed
In July 2025, five Pennsylvania residents, including a plaintiff named Macek, filed a proposed class action against DraftKings and other online gambling operators in federal court.[5] They allege the company used algorithms to identify customers with potential gambling problems and then exploited them, resulting in gambling addiction and large financial and personal losses.[5] These are allegations.[5]
December 2025: Ruling on Promotions Class Action
In December 2025, a federal judge allowed a class action against DraftKings over its No Risk and No Sweat bet promotions to move forward, rejecting DraftKings' motion to dismiss and ruling that the claims plausibly allege deceptive marketing.[6] This case concerns how promotions were advertised.[6] It is not a ruling that the app causes addiction.[6]
March 2026: Pennsylvania Addiction Case Dismissed; Massachusetts Case Filed
In March 2026, a federal judge in Pennsylvania dismissed DraftKings from the class action alleging its marketing and VIP programs caused bettors to develop gambling addictions.[7] The judge concluded that Pennsylvania law likely does not impose a duty on online casinos and sportsbooks to monitor or police customers' betting habits, so the negligence claims failed on the duty element.[7] A duty is a legal obligation that must exist before a negligence claim can succeed. Without a duty, the claim cannot proceed even if other elements are present.
Also in March 2026, a lawsuit was filed in Suffolk County Superior Court in Massachusetts against DraftKings and FanDuel alleging the gambling apps are designed to cause addictive behavior.[8]
On March 24, 2026, two Philadelphia men, Christopher Sage and Terry Thompson, filed a product liability lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against FanDuel, DraftKings, the NFL, and the data company Genius Sports.[9] They are represented by the Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University School of Law.[9] The suit centers on in-game microbetting and alleges the apps were engineered to maximize gambling addiction through AI-driven targeting, push notifications, and promotion of microbets.[9] These are allegations.[9]
April 2026: Pennsylvania Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal
In April 2026, the plaintiffs in the dismissed Pennsylvania case against DraftKings filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, asking it to restore their claims.[5]
May 2026: FanDuel Case Sent to Arbitration
In May 2026, a federal judge sent a plaintiff's lawsuit against FanDuel, which accused the company of worsening his gambling problem, to arbitration.[10] Arbitration is a private dispute resolution process outside of court, often required by the terms of service users agree to when signing up for an app or service.
June 2026: Massachusetts Cases Amended
In June 2026, two Massachusetts lawsuits against FanDuel and DraftKings were amended to add claims under the state consumer protection law, alleging the companies marketed to users whose behavior showed signs of problem gambling using promotions, credits, and VIP managers.[6] The amended complaints seek double or treble damages.[6] These are allegations.[6]
July 2026: Motions to Dismiss Philadelphia Case
In July 2026, DraftKings and FanDuel asked the Philadelphia court to dismiss the Sage and Thompson lawsuit.[11] They argue that Pennsylvania product liability and consumer protection law does not apply to free mobile apps and that the state gave the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board authority over how sportsbooks are regulated.[11] DraftKings also argues the claims are time-barred.[11] FanDuel separately asked to move the case to arbitration under its terms of service.[11] The NFL and Genius Sports filed motions arguing they should not be part of the case.[11] According to the filings as reported, Thompson placed about $23 million in NFL microbets and lost nearly $1.9 million, and Sage lost more than $170,000.[11]
August 2026: RICO Claims Dismissed in California
In August 2026, a federal court in Northern California dismissed RICO claims brought against DraftKings by gamblers seeking to recover their losses, ruling that public policy against recovering gambling losses bars those claims.[12] RICO is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a federal law that allows civil lawsuits for certain patterns of illegal activity.
Where Things Stand Today
There is no multidistrict litigation or coordinated proceeding. These are separate cases in different state and federal courts in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Massachusetts, and California. Different judges are handling each case. The cases are in early stages, with motions to dismiss, arbitration requests, and one appeal pending in the Third Circuit. The record we track does not show any settlement, any trial date, or any verified count of total cases filed.
What Is Not Known Yet
It has been reported but not verified from the docket whether Baltimore's lawsuit was sent back to state court or stayed in federal court, and what its current status is.[4]
It has also been reported but not verified from the dockets whether the Philadelphia court has ruled on the motions to dismiss and the arbitration request in the Sage and Thompson case, and what the status of the Third Circuit appeal is.[11]
The record we track does not show how many total lawsuits have been filed, as there is no consolidated docket and no verified case count available.
For more on the claims being made in these lawsuits, see our page on what the lawsuits allege. For information on who the filed cases involve, see our page on who the filed cases involve. For the medical picture of gambling disorder, see our page on the medical picture.
Sources
- DSM-5 (2013) (2013-05-01). Secondary report: psychdb.com
- Murphy v. NCAA, No. 16-476 (2018-05-01). Secondary report: lawsuittracker.org
- Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. DraftKings and Flutter Entertainment (2025-04-03). Secondary report: global.espn.com
- Baltimore v. DraftKings (2025-05-07). Secondary report: foxbaltimore.com
- Macek et al. v. DraftKings (2025-07-01). Secondary report: aboutlawsuits.com
- DraftKings promotions class action (2025-12-01). Secondary report: aboutlawsuits.com
- Macek et al. v. DraftKings (2026-03-01). Secondary report: playusa.com
- Massachusetts state court action (2026-03-15). Secondary report: wallacemiller.com
- Sage and Thompson v. DraftKings et al. (2026-03-24). Secondary report: bettorsinsider.com
- Arbitration ruling, FanDuel (2026-05-01). Secondary report: sportico.com
- Sage and Thompson v. DraftKings et al. (2026-07-15). Secondary report: torhoermanlaw.com
- RICO action, N.D. Cal. (2026-08-01). Secondary report: playusa.com
Litigation facts on this page come from the TortIntel litigation record and the documents linked above. Last checked against that record on 2026-09-20. If you see an error, tell us and we will correct it.