You told yourself you could stop anytime. That was the thought that kept you going back to the app—one more bet, one more chance to get even, one more notification lighting up your phone at two in the morning. You started by putting twenty dollars on a Sunday football game, something to make watching more exciting. Within months, you were betting on sports you had never watched before, games in countries you could not find on a map, checking your phone every few minutes to see if your parlay hit. When you finally looked at your bank account, when your partner confronted you about the missing money, when you realized you had borrowed from your retirement fund and lied to people you loved, you thought it was a moral failure. A weakness in your character. Something fundamentally broken inside you.
Your therapist used a different word: disorder. Gambling disorder, to be specific, a recognized psychiatric condition that changes the way your brain processes risk and reward. The diagnosis came as both a relief and a devastation. Relief because it meant this was not simply a lack of willpower. Devastation because it meant something had happened to you, something that might have been preventable. You had downloaded an app. You had placed legal bets on your phone. The commercials made it look fun, social, harmless. The platforms told you to bet responsibly, but the apps themselves seemed designed to make responsibility impossible.
What you did not know—what you could not have known—was that while you were losing control, court filings now allege that the companies behind these apps may have had research showing exactly how their platforms could trigger the kind of compulsive behavior you experienced. The lawsuits claim these companies designed features specifically to maximize engagement and betting frequency, features that behavioral scientists had warned could exploit vulnerabilities in certain users. This article examines what those court filings allege, what the public record shows, and what internal documents disclosed in litigation reportedly reveal about what these companies knew and when they knew it.
What Happened
Gambling disorder is what clinicians call it. The people who live with it use different words: trapped, obsessed, out of control, drowning. It starts subtly. You find yourself thinking about betting when you are supposed to be working. You check odds during dinner. You feel a rush of excitement when you place a bet and a crushing emptiness when it loses. Then you chase the loss with another bet, and another, because getting even becomes more important than anything else.
The disorder progresses. You start betting amounts that frighten you. You hide your activity from family and friends. You borrow money you cannot repay. You feel intense anxiety when you are not betting and temporary relief when you are, even though you are losing far more than you are winning. You promise yourself you will stop after this game, this week, this month. You cannot. The app is always there, always accessible, always offering another chance.
People with gambling disorder describe a mental state that feels like being possessed. You know rationally that you are destroying your finances, your relationships, your future. But the compulsion overrides rationality. Some people deplete their savings. Others max out credit cards, take out loans, or steal from employers or family members. Relationships collapse under the weight of lies and broken trust. Some people consider or attempt suicide when the losses become unbearable and the shame becomes suffocating.
This is not about enjoying sports or placing an occasional bet with friends. This is a psychiatric disorder recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the DSM-5. It involves persistent and recurrent problematic gambling behavior that leads to clinically significant impairment or distress. It changes brain chemistry, particularly in the regions that govern impulse control and reward processing. And according to the lawsuits now being filed, the sports betting apps were designed in ways that could trigger and exploit exactly this kind of vulnerability.
The Connection
Mobile sports betting apps are not simply digital versions of placing a bet at a casino or with a bookie. The lawsuits allege these platforms incorporated specific design features that behavioral research had shown could promote compulsive use, features that the companies knew or should have known could contribute to gambling disorder in vulnerable users.
The mechanism is neurological. When you place a bet, your brain releases dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with pleasure and reward. Variable rewards—the unpredictability of whether you will win—create more dopamine release than predictable rewards. This is basic behavioral psychology, documented in research going back decades. A 2001 study published in the journal Neuron showed that unpredictable rewards activate the brain more intensely than predictable ones. A 2008 study in Nature Neuroscience found that near-misses in gambling activate the same brain regions as actual wins, creating the illusion of almost winning and motivating continued play.
Sports betting apps exploit this neurology through design. According to court filings, the platforms use continuous gambling opportunities, meaning you can place bets at any time on games happening anywhere in the world. They offer in-play or live betting, allowing you to bet on the outcome of the next pitch, the next play, the next possession, creating dozens of gambling opportunities within a single game. They send push notifications alerting you to betting opportunities, special promotions, and the status of your bets, bringing the platform into your consciousness even when you are not actively using it.
The lawsuits allege these apps employ variable reward schedules through features like parlay betting, where you combine multiple bets into one wager with exponentially higher payouts but exponentially lower probability of winning. They offer bonuses and free bets that require you to wager multiples of the bonus amount before you can withdraw any winnings, keeping you engaged longer. They display other users winning, creating social proof and the impression that big wins are common and attainable.
Research has documented the addictive potential of these specific features. A 2019 study in the journal Addictive Behaviors examined mobile gambling apps and found that features like in-play betting, push notifications, and ease of access significantly increased gambling frequency and intensity. A 2020 study published in the International Gambling Studies journal found that structural characteristics of online gambling, including event frequency and near-miss programming, were associated with higher rates of problem gambling.
The connection between app design and disorder is dose-dependent and individual. Not everyone who uses these apps will develop gambling disorder, just as not everyone who drinks alcohol will develop alcohol use disorder. But according to court filings, the companies built platforms that maximized engagement and betting frequency without adequate safeguards for users who showed signs of problematic behavior, and they did so with knowledge of the risks these design features posed.
What The Lawsuits Allege They Knew
The litigation against DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM, and other sports betting platforms is relatively new, with cases beginning to be filed in 2023 and 2024 as the scale of addiction and financial harm became apparent. The complaints allege a timeline of corporate knowledge that preceded the rollout of mobile sports betting apps across the United States following the 2018 Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. NCAA, which struck down the federal prohibition on sports betting.
The lawsuits allege that by the time these companies launched or expanded their sports betting platforms in 2018 and beyond, decades of research had already established the addictive potential of the design features they chose to incorporate. A comprehensive 2010 report by the British Gambling Prevalence Survey documented that online gambling was associated with higher rates of problem gambling than traditional forms. Research published in 2012 in the Journal of Gambling Studies identified specific structural characteristics of electronic gambling that increased addictive potential, including event frequency, bet to payout interval, and availability.
According to court filings, the companies had access to this research and in some cases funded their own studies on user engagement and behavior. The complaints allege that internal data showed certain users were exhibiting patterns consistent with problem gambling—rapidly increasing bet frequency, chasing losses, betting at unusual hours—but that the companies did not implement adequate intervention measures. Instead, the lawsuits claim, these high-frequency users were among the most profitable and were sometimes targeted with promotional offers designed to increase their activity.
In 2020, a study published in the journal Psychology of Addictive Behaviors examined the relationship between sports betting marketing and gambling harm. Researchers found that exposure to betting promotions and advertisements was associated with increased betting frequency and higher rates of gambling-related harm. The lawsuits allege the defendants dramatically increased their advertising spending following legalization, with industry reports showing that DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM collectively spent over one billion dollars on advertising in 2021 alone, saturating sports broadcasts and digital media with promotions that normalized and encouraged frequent betting.
Court filings cite testimony from former employees and documents disclosed in litigation that allegedly show the companies tracked user behavior metrics closely, including loss amounts, betting frequency, and session duration. The lawsuits allege that rather than using this data to identify and assist problem gamblers, the platforms optimized their features to maximize what the industry calls customer lifetime value, essentially the total amount a user would lose over the course of their relationship with the platform.
The complaints reference a 2021 investigation by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission which found that a small percentage of users accounted for a disproportionate share of online sports betting revenue, with some individuals losing tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. The lawsuits allege the defendants were aware of this concentration of losses among a vulnerable subset of users and made business decisions that prioritized revenue from these individuals over their welfare.
In 2022, according to documents cited in court filings, multiple state attorneys general and regulators began questioning the sports betting companies about their responsible gaming measures. The lawsuits allege that the tools these companies offered—such as deposit limits, time limits, and self-exclusion options—were difficult to find, easy to circumvent, and not proactively offered to users exhibiting warning signs of problem gambling. Some complaints cite internal communications allegedly showing that employees raised concerns about vulnerable users but that these concerns were not prioritized by management.
A 2023 study published in JAMA Network Open examined the prevalence of gambling disorder following the expansion of legal sports betting in the United States. Researchers found significant increases in gambling disorder diagnoses in states that had legalized mobile sports betting, with particularly sharp increases among young adults. The lawsuits allege the companies had data showing their user base skewed younger and that younger users were at higher risk for developing gambling problems, yet they continued aggressive marketing during sporting events with large youth audiences.
What The Lawsuits Say About Concealment
The complaints allege that the sports betting companies engaged in a pattern of conduct designed to minimize public awareness of the addictive nature of their platforms and to forestall regulatory action that might limit their most profitable features. These are allegations set forth in the litigation and have not been established as fact through trial or settlement unless otherwise noted.
According to court filings, the defendants funded research and advocacy organizations that promoted responsible gambling messaging focused on individual choice and personal responsibility, while allegedly downplaying or failing to disclose research showing that platform design features could override individual choice in vulnerable users. The lawsuits claim this framing served to shift blame to users rather than examine the structural features of the apps themselves.
The complaints allege the companies used responsible gambling messaging as a shield, including taglines like bet responsibly and promotional materials encouraging users to set limits, while simultaneously employing design features and marketing tactics that the lawsuits claim were intended to maximize engagement and override those very limits. Court filings characterize this as a form of concealment, presenting a public image of corporate responsibility while allegedly designing platforms that exploited psychological vulnerabilities.
Some lawsuits allege the companies lobbied aggressively against regulations that would have limited certain features or required more robust responsible gambling interventions. According to documents cited in complaints, industry groups that included the defendants opposed mandatory bet limits, cooling-off periods, and restrictions on in-play betting in multiple states. The litigation claims this lobbying was undertaken with knowledge that such restrictions could reduce gambling-related harm but would also reduce revenue.
Court filings further allege that the platforms made it difficult for users to access their full betting history and loss totals, requiring multiple steps to view this information and not displaying it prominently. The lawsuits claim this design choice prevented users from fully understanding the extent of their losses and made it harder to recognize problematic patterns in their own behavior. Some complaints include screenshots and user experience documentation allegedly showing how loss information was obscured while promotional messages were prominently displayed.
The litigation also alleges that the companies collected extensive data on user behavior, including indicators of problem gambling, but did not share this data with researchers, regulators, or public health authorities who could have used it to understand and address the scope of gambling-related harm. The complaints characterize this as concealment through omission, a failure to disclose information that could have informed public policy and individual decisions about risk.
Why Your Doctor May Not Have Told You
Gambling disorder is a relatively recent addition to mainstream psychiatric diagnosis, having been reclassified in the DSM-5 in 2013 from an impulse control disorder to an addictive disorder, grouped with substance use disorders because of similarities in brain mechanisms and clinical presentation. Many physicians, particularly those who completed their training before this reclassification, have limited education on gambling disorder and may not screen for it routinely.
The rapid expansion of legal mobile sports betting beginning in 2018 created a new population of people at risk. Unlike casino gambling, which requires physical presence at a location, mobile betting is accessible 24 hours a day from anywhere. This accessibility, combined with the design features discussed earlier, meant that people who had never been at risk for gambling problems suddenly found themselves using platforms specifically engineered to maximize engagement.
The lawsuits allege that the sports betting companies did not adequately educate healthcare providers or the public about the specific risks associated with mobile betting platforms. According to court filings, the industry messaging focused on the legality and entertainment value of sports betting, not on the psychiatric risks or the features that could contribute to disorder. The complaints claim this left both users and their healthcare providers without complete information about risk.
There is also a gap in how risk information flows to medical professionals in the context of consumer products and digital platforms. Unlike pharmaceutical drugs, which come with FDA-required warnings and prescribing information that doctors receive, consumer apps are not subject to the same disclosure requirements. The lawsuits allege that even as evidence accumulated about gambling disorder linked to sports betting apps, there was no systematic mechanism for communicating this risk to the medical community or to potential users.
Some court filings allege that the defendants actively resisted public health messaging that might have informed doctors and users about risk. The complaints cite examples of industry pushback against warning labels, mandatory risk disclosures, and public awareness campaigns, characterizing these efforts as prioritizing profit over public health. These are allegations in the litigation, and the extent to which such efforts occurred and their impact on medical knowledge is a matter being contested in court.
Who Is Affected
If you used DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM, or similar mobile sports betting apps and subsequently developed gambling disorder, experienced significant financial losses, or suffered related harm to your relationships, employment, or mental health, you may be among those affected by the conduct alleged in these lawsuits.
The timeline typically looks like this: You downloaded a mobile sports betting app after 2018, when sports betting became legal in your state. You may have been drawn in by promotions offering free bets, deposit matches, or other incentives heavily advertised during sporting events. You began betting with amounts that seemed manageable, but over time your betting frequency increased. You found yourself using features like in-play betting, placing wagers on games you were watching or even games you were not watching. You received push notifications that prompted you to bet even when you had not planned to.
As your use continued, you experienced changes in your behavior and thinking. You thought about betting frequently, even when not actively using the app. You felt restless or irritable when you tried to cut back. You bet larger amounts to achieve the same level of excitement. You chased losses, trying to get even by placing more bets. You lied to family members or others about the extent of your betting. You jeopardized or lost important relationships, jobs, or opportunities because of betting.
The financial impact is often severe. Some people affected by gambling disorder linked to these apps have lost tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some have depleted retirement accounts, taken out loans, maxed out credit cards, or borrowed from family members. The losses are not limited to the money wagered; they include the cascading consequences of financial devastation—foreclosures, bankruptcies, destroyed credit, lost educational opportunities for children.
The psychological and relational harm can be equally devastating. Marriages end. Partnerships dissolve. Trust is broken with family members and friends. Some people experience severe depression, anxiety, or suicidal ideation related to their gambling losses and the shame and hopelessness that accompany the disorder. Some have required psychiatric hospitalization or intensive outpatient treatment.
You are affected if this describes your experience. The lawsuits do not require that you meet a specific dollar threshold of losses or that you were formally diagnosed before filing. They center on whether you used these platforms, whether you developed gambling disorder or experienced serious harm as a result, and whether that harm was connected to the design features and business practices the complaints allege were implemented with knowledge of the risks they posed.
Where Things Stand
The litigation against mobile sports betting companies is in its early stages. The first significant lawsuits alleging gambling disorder and design liability were filed in 2023, with additional cases filed throughout 2023 and 2024 in multiple states. These cases are proceeding in both state and federal courts.
As of the current date, there are no major settlements or verdicts to report in the sports betting addiction litigation. The cases are in the discovery phase, during which plaintiffs are seeking access to internal company documents, user data, research, and communications that could establish what the companies knew about the addictive potential of their platforms and when they knew it. This process typically takes years in complex product liability litigation.
Some cases have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings through multidistrict litigation or coordinated proceedings at the state level, which allows for more efficient handling of common discovery issues. Defense motions to dismiss have been filed in several jurisdictions, arguing among other things that users assumed the risk of gambling losses, that gambling disorder is an individual medical condition not caused by app design, and that the companies complied with applicable state regulations. Courts are in the process of ruling on these motions, and initial rulings have been mixed, with some cases surviving dismissal and proceeding to discovery.
In addition to individual lawsuits, some state attorneys general have opened investigations into the business practices of sports betting companies, particularly regarding marketing to young adults and the adequacy of responsible gambling tools. Regulatory actions and legislative proposals in multiple states have sought to impose additional restrictions on sports betting advertising, platform features, and responsible gambling requirements. The outcomes of these regulatory efforts may influence the litigation.
The legal theories in these cases include negligence, design defect, failure to warn, fraud, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. Plaintiffs allege that the companies designed platforms they knew or should have known could cause addiction, failed to warn users of these risks, misrepresented the safety and nature of their products, and violated consumer protection laws. The defendants deny these allegations and have asserted various defenses including personal responsibility, assumption of risk, and compliance with regulatory frameworks.
Individuals who believe they have been harmed by sports betting apps continue to have the ability to file lawsuits, though statutes of limitations vary by state and by the legal theory asserted. Some statutes of limitations may be tolled, or paused, based on when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the connection between the app use and the disorder, rather than when the use began. This is a complex area of law that depends on the specific facts and the jurisdiction.
What This Means
What happened to you was not a failure of character. It was not a lack of discipline or willpower. The lawsuits allege it was the result of design choices made by companies that had access to research showing how certain features could trigger compulsive behavior in vulnerable users. They allege it was the result of business decisions that prioritized growth and revenue over safety. They allege it was preventable.
You were told to bet responsibly, but according to the court filings, you were using a platform allegedly designed to make responsible betting difficult or impossible for people with certain vulnerabilities. You were told it was entertainment, but the lawsuits claim the companies knew or should have known that for some users, it would become a disorder. You thought you were making free choices, but the complaints allege the platform was engineered to exploit the neurological mechanisms that govern impulse and reward, creating a compulsion that felt like choice but was something else entirely. The litigation seeks to hold these companies accountable for what plaintiffs say they knew, what they allegedly concealed, and the harm that followed. The outcome will unfold in courtrooms over the coming years. But the fact of your experience, the reality of what you went through, stands independent of any legal process. It was real. It was devastating. And it was not your fault.