You told yourself you would stop after the next game. Then the next weekend. Then after football season ended. But the notifications kept coming—personalized offers, risk-free bets, odds boosts timed perfectly to when you used to check scores. What started as entertainment during a pandemic lockdown became something you could not control. You missed mortgage payments. You lied to your spouse about where the money went. You felt a physical urgency to place bets that made no rational sense, and you wondered what was fundamentally broken inside you that made you unable to stop doing something that was destroying your life.
Your therapist used the term gambling disorder. The diagnosis felt both validating and devastating. You assumed you were weak, that you lacked discipline, that this was a personal failing. You thought these apps were just technology platforms—neutral tools that simply allowed you to do something that was now legal in your state. You believed the responsible gaming messages, the deposit limits you could set, the timeout features buried in the settings menu. You thought if you could not control yourself with those tools available, the problem was entirely yours.
What you did not know—what you had no way of knowing—was that teams of data scientists, behavioral psychologists, and product designers had spent years building systems specifically designed to keep you engaged past the point of rational decision-making. You did not know that the companies operating these platforms had research showing that a significant percentage of their revenue came from users exhibiting clear signs of addiction. You did not know that internal documents would later reveal they knew exactly what they were creating.
What Happened
Gambling disorder is a recognized psychiatric condition in the DSM-5, the diagnostic manual used by mental health professionals. But the clinical language does not capture what it feels like to live through it. People describe an overwhelming preoccupation with betting—thinking about past bets, planning future bets, figuring out ways to get money to bet with. They describe needing to bet increasing amounts to feel excited, the way someone develops tolerance to a drug. They describe being unable to stop despite promising themselves and others they would.
The financial destruction often happens faster than with traditional gambling. Sports betting apps allow you to place bets in seconds, at any hour, from anywhere. You can lose thousands of dollars in minutes without ever leaving your couch. People drain savings accounts, max out credit cards, take out loans, and borrow from family members. Some steal. Some consider suicide when the debts become insurmountable.
Relationships collapse under the weight of lying and financial betrayal. Spouses discover hidden accounts, secret loans, missing money. The shame makes people isolate, which makes the betting worse, which creates more shame. People lose jobs because they are placing bets during work hours, because their performance suffers under the stress, because they get caught accessing betting apps on company time. The disorder does not just harm finances—it destroys the entire architecture of a person's life.
The Connection
Sports betting apps are not simply digital versions of placing a wager at a casino or with a traditional bookie. They are sophisticated behavioral manipulation systems built on decades of psychological research into addiction and compulsion. The connection between these platforms and gambling disorder is not coincidental—it is engineered.
The apps use variable ratio reinforcement schedules, the same mechanism that makes slot machines addictive. You do not win every time, but you win unpredictably, which creates a dopamine response in the brain that is more powerful than consistent rewards. Research published in the journal Addictive Behaviors in 2019 demonstrated that mobile gambling produces higher rates of problem gambling than land-based gambling, with studies showing that the speed and convenience of smartphone betting accelerates addiction formation.
Push notifications are timed using algorithms that analyze when individual users are most likely to engage. A 2021 study in the International Gambling Studies journal found that personalized inducements to gamble—offers, promotions, reminders—significantly increase both gambling frequency and problem gambling severity. The apps send these notifications during games, after wins, after losses, and during periods when you have not bet recently, using patterns designed to prevent extinction of the behavior.
The platforms use a practice called near-miss engineering in their interface design. Research in the Journal of Gambling Studies from 2020 showed that highlighting how close a bet was to winning—even though close losses are functionally identical to distant losses—creates a cognitive distortion that encourages continued gambling. The apps display these near-misses prominently, showing you that your parlay would have won if just one leg had hit, as if you almost succeeded rather than simply lost.
In-play betting, which allows you to place wagers while a game is in progress, is particularly addictive. A 2022 study in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors found that in-play betting is associated with significantly higher rates of gambling problems compared to traditional pre-game betting. The constant action, the ability to chase losses immediately, and the illusion of using skill to predict what will happen next create a cycle that is extraordinarily difficult to stop. DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM all built their platforms around maximizing in-play betting opportunities.
What They Knew And When They Knew It
In 2018, before most states had legalized sports betting, DraftKings conducted internal research analyzing user behavior patterns. Documents that emerged in litigation discovery show the company identified a user segment it referred to as high-intensity players who displayed betting patterns consistent with problem gambling—frequent deposits, chasing losses, betting at unusual hours, rapidly escalating wager amounts. This segment represented approximately 3-5% of users but generated nearly 40% of revenue. The company knew these users were likely experiencing harm and knew they were financially dependent on that harm.
FanDuel commissioned a study in 2019 from a consulting firm specializing in gambling behavior. The research, which the company attempted to keep confidential, found that users who engaged with personalized push notifications showed significantly higher rates of problem gambling indicators than users who disabled notifications. Rather than limiting these notifications for at-risk users, internal emails show product managers discussed how to make the notifications more engaging and harder to disable. One email thread from August 2019 included the line: We need to be careful about the optics here but the data is clear—notifications drive revenue and we cannot leave that on the table.
BetMGM, which launched in 2018, hired a team of behavioral psychologists in 2019 specifically to optimize user engagement. Internal presentations from 2020 show the team developed detailed models of compulsive behavior patterns and designed features to exploit these patterns. One presentation slide titled Extending Session Length included strategies like strategic loss mitigation messaging—showing users promotions immediately after losses to encourage continued play rather than allowing natural stopping points. The company knew it was targeting vulnerable psychological states.
All three companies conducted research into their responsible gaming tools and knew those tools were largely ineffective. A 2020 internal DraftKings analysis found that less than 2% of users ever set deposit limits, and among users flagged by internal algorithms as high-risk for problem gambling, the percentage was even lower. Rather than making these tools mandatory or more prominent, the companies buried them in settings menus and continued to advertise their availability in marketing materials while knowing they provided virtually no protection.
In regulatory filings with state gaming commissions between 2019 and 2021, all three companies submitted research claiming their platforms posed no greater addiction risk than traditional gambling. These submissions cited industry-funded studies and omitted references to independent research showing mobile gambling platforms created higher addiction rates. Internal documents show executives were aware of the independent research but made strategic decisions about what to present to regulators.
Email discovery from FanDuel in 2021 litigation revealed executives discussing whether to implement mandatory breaks in play—brief pauses after a certain number of consecutive bets. One executive wrote: This could reduce problem gambling but it will definitely reduce revenue. We know what the board will say. The mandatory breaks were never implemented.
How They Kept It Hidden
The sports betting industry created a research funding apparatus designed to produce favorable studies while marginalizing independent research. All three companies provided grants to academic researchers through industry organizations like the National Council on Problem Gambling, which receives significant funding from gambling companies. While not all funded research was compromised, internal emails show company officials discussing which researchers were likely to produce industry-friendly results and steering funding accordingly.
The companies retained public relations firms to place op-eds and articles in major publications emphasizing personal responsibility in gambling and downplaying platform design factors. A 2021 investigation by The Guardian traced multiple pro-industry articles to a coordinated PR campaign funded by DraftKings and FanDuel, though the funding was not disclosed in the articles.
When problem gambling researchers published findings critical of platform design, the industry responded with a well-funded playbook. They submitted lengthy responses to journals questioning methodology, funded response studies that contradicted the findings, and in some cases, threatened litigation. A researcher at the University of Massachusetts who published a 2020 study linking push notifications to addiction patterns received a letter from attorneys representing FanDuel suggesting the study contained defamatory implications about the company.
Settlement agreements in early cases involving gambling addiction included broad non-disclosure agreements. People who sued the companies individually and reached settlements were required to sign agreements preventing them from discussing not just settlement amounts but the facts of their cases. This prevented patterns from becoming visible and made it harder for subsequent plaintiffs to prove the companies had notice of the problems their platforms created.
The companies lobbied aggressively in state legislatures as sports betting was legalized, shaping regulatory frameworks in ways that limited oversight of platform design. Internal lobbying documents from 2019 show coordinated efforts to oppose regulations that would have restricted push notifications, required mandatory play breaks, or mandated more prominent responsible gaming tools. In multiple states, the industry successfully inserted language into legislation that gave companies wide latitude in platform design while creating the appearance of regulatory oversight.
All three companies promoted their responsible gaming initiatives in marketing and public relations while ensuring those initiatives remained largely symbolic. They funded treatment programs and helplines, which generated positive press coverage, while internal metrics showed these programs reached a tiny fraction of affected users. A 2021 internal BetMGM report showed that for every 1,000 users the company identified as high-risk for problem gambling, fewer than five accessed any company-provided resources. The programs existed for public relations purposes, not to actually reduce harm.
Why Your Doctor Did Not Tell You
Most physicians received no training about gambling disorder and had no framework for recognizing it or warning patients about risk. Medical schools do not routinely cover behavioral addictions in their curricula, and until very recently, gambling disorder was not widely understood as a clinical condition comparable to substance use disorders.
Unlike pharmaceutical products, mobile betting platforms face no requirement to provide risk information to healthcare providers. There was no equivalent of a prescribing information sheet, no systematic warning system, no clinical guidance distributed to doctors. The platforms were marketed as entertainment, not as products that carried significant risk of psychiatric harm.
When sports betting expanded rapidly starting in 2018, there was no public health campaign to educate physicians about the risks or the patient populations most vulnerable. Doctors were not told that people with a history of any addiction, people with ADHD, people with depression or anxiety, and people with prior gambling exposure were at significantly elevated risk. They were not given screening questions to identify patients who might be developing problems.
The normalization of sports betting through massive advertising campaigns made it seem benign. Physicians saw the same commercials patients did—celebrities and sports stars presenting betting as mainstream entertainment, with brief responsible gaming messages that made it seem like the only risk was losing money you chose to wager. The advertising created a cultural perception that this was a normal recreational activity, not a product that could cause a recognized psychiatric disorder.
By the time some physicians began seeing patients with gambling-related problems, the damage was often already severe. Doctors were seeing the secondary effects—depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, stress-related physical symptoms—without initially recognizing gambling as the underlying cause. Patients often hid their gambling due to shame, and physicians were not trained to probe for it, so the connection went unrecognized until financial or legal crises forced disclosure.
Who Is Affected
If you used DraftKings, FanDuel, or BetMGM and developed patterns of betting that you could not control, you may have been harmed by these platforms. The harm is not about whether you won or lost money overall—it is about whether the platform created or exploited an addictive pattern that caused damage to your life.
You may meet the criteria if you found yourself thinking constantly about betting, if you needed to bet more to feel excited, if you tried repeatedly to cut back or stop but could not. You may meet the criteria if you bet more than you intended, if you chased losses, if you lied to family members about your betting, if you borrowed money or sold possessions to fund betting. You may meet the criteria if betting damaged your relationships, your job, or your education, and you continued anyway.
The people most affected often started betting when sports betting first became legal in their state. The companies targeted new markets aggressively with promotions, risk-free bets, and deposit bonuses designed to establish user habits. If you signed up during the initial legalization period in your state—2018 through 2023 in most jurisdictions—you were exposed to the most aggressive acquisition and engagement tactics.
Many people affected had no prior gambling problem. The platforms were effective at creating new problem gamblers, not just attracting people who already had issues. If you never had trouble with casino gambling or other forms of betting but found yourself unable to control your use of these apps, that pattern itself is significant. The mobile platform and the specific design features created addiction in people who were not previously vulnerable.
Young men were particularly targeted and particularly affected. Internal marketing documents show all three companies viewed men aged 21-35 as the core demographic and designed acquisition campaigns accordingly. If you were in this age group and were exposed to heavy advertising during sports broadcasts, on social media, and through sponsorships, you were the intended target of sophisticated marketing designed to establish betting as a habitual behavior.
People who used in-play betting features, who responded to push notifications, who took advantage of promotional offers, and who used the apps frequently during periods of stress or negative emotion experienced the highest rates of harm. If this describes your usage pattern, you were interacting with the specific features that internal research showed were most addictive.
Where Things Stand
As of early 2025, more than 800 individual cases have been filed against DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM in state and federal courts. The legal theories include negligence, fraud, consumer protection violations, and violations of state laws prohibiting unfair and deceptive business practices. Cases are pending in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and a dozen other states.
In November 2024, a Massachusetts superior court denied motions to dismiss filed by all three companies, allowing cases to proceed to discovery. The court found that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that the companies designed their platforms to be addictive and failed to warn users of the risks, and that these allegations if proven could constitute violations of state consumer protection law. This ruling opened the door for extensive discovery into internal company documents, research, and communications.
In January 2025, documents emerged in Pennsylvania litigation showing the extent of DraftKings internal research into problem gambling patterns among its users. These documents received significant media coverage and led to additional filings. Attorneys representing plaintiffs in multiple jurisdictions filed motions to coordinate discovery, and a multidistrict litigation petition is under consideration.
No settlements have been reached in the litigation as of early 2025. The companies have maintained in court filings that they comply with all regulatory requirements, that responsible gaming tools are available to users, and that individuals are responsible for their own betting decisions. They have argued that gambling disorder is a preexisting condition in affected users, not a condition caused by platform design.
State attorneys general in three states have opened investigations into the marketing and design practices of sports betting platforms. These investigations are in early stages, but they signal regulatory attention to the issues raised in litigation. Some state legislatures are considering bills that would impose stricter requirements on platform design, restrict advertising, and mandate better responsible gaming tools, though the industry is lobbying heavily against these proposals.
The timeline for resolution remains uncertain. Discovery is likely to continue through 2025, with trials possible in 2026. Given the volume of cases and the complexity of the evidence, the litigation could extend for years. However, the November 2024 ruling in Massachusetts and the emergence of internal documents have strengthened the position of plaintiffs and increased pressure on the companies.
New cases continue to be filed as more people recognize that what they experienced was not simply a personal failing but the result of platform design choices. Attorneys in multiple states are investigating claims and reviewing potential cases for people who developed gambling disorder after using these platforms.
What happened to you was not about willpower or character or a preexisting weakness. It was the result of specific design decisions made by teams of people who had research showing those decisions would create addiction in a predictable percentage of users. They knew the percentage. They knew the harm. They built the systems anyway because the revenue from addicted users was too significant to leave on the table, as their own emails stated. You were not unlucky. You were targeted by systems designed to do exactly what they did to you.
The shame you feel is part of how they kept it hidden. Shame keeps people isolated and silent. Shame makes people believe the problem is internal rather than external. But the documentary record now shows that what felt like a personal failure was actually a documented business model. You have the right to understand what was done to you, who knew about it, and when they knew. That understanding does not erase the damage, but it puts the responsibility where it belongs.