You downloaded the app because it seemed like harmless fun. A few dollars on a Sunday game. A parlay bet with friends. The advertisements made it look social, entertaining, a way to make watching sports more exciting. You were not walking into a casino. You were not sitting at a poker table at 3 AM. You were just tapping your phone during halftime.
But somewhere along the way, something changed. The bets became more frequent. The amounts grew larger. You found yourself placing wagers on sports you had never watched before, on teams you knew nothing about, just to have action. You began chasing losses, certain the next bet would get you even. You lied to your spouse about where the money went. You borrowed from friends, from credit cards, from retirement accounts. You felt a physical urgency to place bets that felt identical to hunger or thirst. When you could not bet, you became irritable, anxious, unable to focus on anything else.
When the money ran out and the relationships collapsed, you assumed this was a personal failure. A lack of willpower. A character defect. You thought you should have been strong enough to just stop. What you may not have known is that the platform you were using was designed, according to allegations now in litigation, to create exactly the compulsive behavior you experienced. The lawsuits claim these companies built systems intended to keep you betting longer, more frequently, and with less control than you would have in any other gambling environment.
What Happened
Gambling disorder is a behavioral addiction recognized by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental health condition. People who develop it experience an inability to control gambling behavior despite severe negative consequences. They think constantly about gambling, need to bet increasing amounts to achieve the same feeling, become restless or irritable when trying to cut back, chase losses by betting more to get even, lie about the extent of their gambling, and jeopardize relationships, jobs, or financial stability because of it.
For many people using sports betting apps, the progression happened rapidly. What started as recreational betting became a consuming compulsion within months. They describe feeling unable to watch a game without having money on it. They talk about the physical sensation of needing to place a bet, a craving that overrode rational thought. They recount placing dozens of bets in a single day, on games they had no interest in, simply because the app made it possible and prompted them to do so.
The financial devastation is often catastrophic. People report losing tens of thousands of dollars in weeks. Draining savings accounts. Maxing out credit cards. Taking out loans. Stealing from family members. Filing for bankruptcy. The median debt reported by people seeking treatment for gambling disorder related to sports betting apps ranges from thirty thousand to over one hundred thousand dollars, according to clinical data from addiction treatment centers.
The emotional and relational damage compounds the financial loss. Marriages end. People lose custody of children. Friendships dissolve. Many describe overwhelming shame, not just about the money, but about the lying, the stolen time, the person they became while in the grip of the compulsion. A significant number report suicidal ideation. The National Council on Problem Gambling reports that people with gambling disorder have the highest suicide rate of any behavioral addiction.
The Connection
The design features of mobile sports betting apps create a gambling environment fundamentally different from traditional betting, and according to research on behavioral psychology, far more likely to produce addiction. The lawsuits allege that DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM deployed these features with full knowledge of their addictive potential.
Traditional sports betting required a person to physically travel to a casino or betting parlor, place a wager, and wait hours or days for the outcome. Mobile betting apps eliminated every barrier. The casino is now in your pocket, available 24 hours a day. You can place bets while sitting in your car, lying in bed, or sitting across from your family at dinner. The friction between impulse and action has been reduced to near zero.
In-play or live betting allows users to place wagers on events within a game while the game is in progress. You can bet on the outcome of the next play, the next at-bat, the next two-minute drill. The lawsuits allege that the companies designed these features knowing they would exploit a psychological phenomenon called variable ratio reinforcement, the same mechanism that makes slot machines addictive. The unpredictability of the reward and the speed of the betting cycle create a dopamine response in the brain that drives compulsive behavior.
A study published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior in 2021 found that in-play betting was associated with significantly higher rates of gambling problems compared to traditional pre-game betting, and that the speed and frequency of betting opportunities were the primary factors. Research published in the International Gambling Studies journal in 2020 found that the average time between bet placement and outcome resolution on mobile sports betting apps was under 90 seconds, compared to several hours for traditional sports bets, and that this compression of the gambling cycle was strongly correlated with loss of control.
The platforms also use push notifications to prompt users to bet. The lawsuits allege that these notifications are timed and targeted based on user behavior data to arrive when a person is most likely to place a wager. If you have not logged in for a few hours, you receive an alert about a game starting soon or a promotional offer. If you have been betting frequently, the notifications increase. The complaint alleges that BetMGM and DraftKings employed data scientists and behavioral psychologists specifically to optimize notification timing for maximum engagement, a term the industry uses that the lawsuits equate with maximizing compulsive use.
Bonus structures and promotional offers create what addiction researchers call a distorted perception of winning. The apps offer free bets, deposit matches, and odds boosts that make it appear the user is winning or getting value, even as they lose money overall. The lawsuits allege that these promotions are designed to obscure the true cost of gambling and to encourage people to bet more than they intended. A 2022 study published in the Journal of Gambling Studies found that promotional offers were a significant predictor of gambling problems among sports bettors, and that people who used bonuses and free bets gambled more frequently and lost more money than those who did not.
The platforms also deploy features that make it easy to deposit money and difficult to withdraw it. According to allegations in the complaints, users can link bank accounts and credit cards for instant deposits, but withdrawals require verification steps, waiting periods, and in some cases fees. The lawsuits claim this asymmetry is intentional, designed to keep money on the platform and in play.
What The Lawsuits Allege They Knew
The litigation alleges that DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM were aware of the addictive potential of their platform design features before they launched mobile sports betting at scale, and that they made deliberate business decisions to deploy those features anyway.
According to court filings, internal company research conducted by DraftKings in 2019 analyzed user behavior patterns and identified a segment of users the company referred to as high-frequency bettors who placed wagers daily or multiple times per day and who accounted for a disproportionate share of company revenue. The lawsuits allege that the research identified characteristics of these users that were consistent with gambling disorder, including chasing losses, increasing bet size over time, and betting on unfamiliar sports or events. The complaint claims that rather than implementing protective measures for these users, the company optimized platform features to increase engagement among this high-value segment.
A 2020 study commissioned by FanDuel and conducted by a third-party research firm, referenced in the litigation, reportedly examined the impact of push notifications on user activity. According to the complaint, the study found that notifications increased betting frequency by an average of 34 percent, and that the increase was most pronounced among users who exhibited signs of problem gambling, such as high-frequency betting and large losses relative to deposits. The lawsuits allege that FanDuel expanded its use of notifications following this research.
Court filings also point to testimony given before state legislatures as sports betting legalization spread across the United States between 2018 and 2023. The lawsuits allege that company representatives testified that their platforms included robust responsible gambling features, such as deposit limits and self-exclusion tools, but that internal data showed these tools were rarely used and that the companies did not actively encourage their use. According to documents disclosed in the litigation, fewer than 2 percent of users on the DraftKings platform set deposit limits as of 2021, and the company sent no proactive communications encouraging users to use these tools.
The complaint alleges that BetMGM conducted focus groups in 2020 to test messaging related to responsible gambling features. According to the litigation, participants in the focus groups said that prominent responsible gambling messaging made the platform feel less fun and less exciting, and that BetMGM subsequently decided to minimize the visibility of these features in the app interface. The lawsuits claim this was a decision to prioritize user engagement and revenue over user safety.
The litigation also references a 2021 presentation to investors by DraftKings executives, disclosed in securities filings, in which the company reported that a small percentage of users generated the majority of revenue and described strategies to increase the lifetime value of these high-frequency users. The lawsuits allege that the company knew these users were likely experiencing gambling problems but chose to focus on extracting more revenue from them rather than intervening.
Plaintiffs point to data from the United Kingdom, where mobile sports betting has been legal for over a decade and where gambling operators are subject to stricter regulations. A 2019 report by the UK Gambling Commission found that online betting platforms, including some operated by the parent companies of DraftKings and FanDuel, had repeatedly failed to intervene with customers showing clear signs of problem gambling, including customers who deposited and lost large sums in short periods. The lawsuits allege that the companies were aware of these regulatory findings and the patterns of harm they revealed, yet deployed the same platform features in the United States without additional safeguards.
What The Lawsuits Say About Concealment
The litigation alleges that the sports betting companies engaged in a coordinated effort to shape public perception and regulatory policy in ways that concealed the risks of their platforms and blocked measures that would have reduced harm.
According to the complaints, the companies funded research through industry trade groups and academic partnerships that downplayed the risks of mobile sports betting and emphasized its economic benefits. The lawsuits allege that this research was selectively published and promoted to legislators and regulators as states considered legalizing sports betting. Plaintiffs claim that studies showing higher rates of gambling problems associated with mobile betting and in-play wagering were not disclosed or promoted by the industry, even as the companies cited industry-funded research in their lobbying efforts.
Court filings allege that DraftKings and FanDuel were founding members of industry coalitions that lobbied state legislatures to reject or weaken responsible gambling measures. According to documents referenced in the litigation, these coalitions opposed mandatory limits on bet frequency, mandatory cooling-off periods, and requirements that responsible gambling tools be presented to users at the point of registration. The lawsuits claim that internal communications show the companies viewed these measures as threats to revenue growth.
The complaints also allege that the companies used targeted advertising to reach young adults and people with limited gambling experience, populations research shows are at higher risk for developing gambling disorder. According to the litigation, advertising spending by DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM exceeded one billion dollars in 2021 and 2022 combined, with a focus on television ads during sports programming, social media marketing, and partnerships with professional athletes and sports leagues. The lawsuits allege that this advertising normalized sports betting and created the impression that it was a safe, mainstream form of entertainment, without adequate disclosure of addiction risks.
Plaintiffs claim that the companies collected detailed data on user behavior, including information that would have allowed them to identify users at risk of gambling problems, but did not use this data to intervene or warn users. According to allegations in the complaints, the platforms tracked metrics such as time spent on the app, number of bets placed, frequency of deposits, ratio of losses to deposits, and use of credit versus debit funding sources. The lawsuits allege that these data points are established indicators of problem gambling, and that the companies possessed the technical capability to flag at-risk users and limit their activity, but chose not to do so.
Why Your Doctor May Not Have Told You
Gambling disorder is underrecognized in medical practice. Many primary care physicians do not screen for it, and even mental health professionals may not ask about gambling unless a patient raises it directly. The condition was only reclassified from an impulse control disorder to an addiction in the DSM-5 in 2013, and many clinicians have not updated their understanding or their screening practices.
There is also a general lack of awareness that mobile sports betting carries a different and higher risk profile than traditional gambling. Doctors who came of age before smartphones may think of gambling as something that happens in a casino, not something that happens continuously on a device in your pocket. The rapid legalization of sports betting, which went from being legal in only one state in 2017 to being legal in over thirty states by 2023, outpaced the medical community's ability to understand and respond to the public health implications.
The lawsuits allege that the companies contributed to this knowledge gap by funding educational materials and continuing medical education programs that minimized the risks of mobile sports betting. According to court filings, FanDuel provided financial support to organizations that train healthcare providers on gambling disorder, and the plaintiffs claim that this funding came with influence over curriculum content. The complaint alleges that materials distributed through these programs emphasized individual responsibility and pre-existing vulnerability, rather than the role of platform design in creating addiction.
The litigation also alleges that the industry successfully framed gambling disorder as a rare problem affecting a small number of vulnerable individuals, rather than a foreseeable consequence of widespread exposure to a behaviourally engineered product. The lawsuits claim this framing shaped how regulators, healthcare providers, and the public thought about the risks, and that it insulated the companies from accountability.
Who Is Affected
The lawsuits involve people who used mobile sports betting apps and subsequently developed gambling disorder. Most plaintiffs are adults who had no prior history of gambling problems. They downloaded an app after sports betting became legal in their state, often in response to advertising or promotional offers. They began betting recreationally and found themselves unable to stop.
You may be affected if you used DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM, or similar platforms and experienced a pattern of increasing betting frequency, growing financial losses, unsuccessful attempts to cut back, lying to others about your gambling, or continuing to gamble despite serious consequences to your finances, relationships, or employment. Many people describe a turning point where they realized they were no longer betting for entertainment but because they felt compelled to do so.
The harm is not limited to people who lost enormous sums, though many did. The lawsuits include plaintiffs who lost amounts ranging from a few thousand dollars to several hundred thousand. What they share is not the dollar amount but the experience of losing control, of being unable to stop despite wanting to, and of suffering consequences that extended far beyond money.
Many people affected are in their twenties, thirties, and forties. A significant number are men, though women are also represented in the litigation. Some had prior experience with other forms of gambling, such as playing poker with friends or buying lottery tickets, but most did not. They were introduced to gambling through sports betting apps and developed a disorder rapidly, often within six months to two years of starting to use the platforms.
If you found yourself checking the app dozens of times a day, if you bet on sports you had no interest in just to have action, if you borrowed money to keep betting, if you felt anxious or irritable when you could not place a wager, if your relationships suffered because of the time and money you spent on betting, you are describing the experience that many plaintiffs in these lawsuits share.
Where Things Stand
Lawsuits against DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM, and other sports betting operators have been filed in multiple states, including Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. The complaints allege negligence, fraud, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and violations of state consumer protection laws. Some cases also assert claims under public nuisance theories, arguing that the companies created a public health hazard.
As of early 2025, the litigation is in its early stages. Some cases have survived motions to dismiss, meaning that courts have found the allegations sufficient to proceed. No cases have yet gone to trial, and no settlements have been publicly announced. The companies have denied wrongdoing and argued that gambling is a legal activity, that they comply with all state regulations, and that users are responsible for their own behavior.
Legal experts expect the litigation to follow a trajectory similar to other product liability and mass tort cases involving behavioral harms, such as social media addiction litigation and opioid cases. Discovery will likely focus on internal company communications, research and development documents related to platform design, data on user behavior and company knowledge of harm, and marketing and advertising strategies. Plaintiffs will seek to show that the companies knew their platforms were causing addiction and chose profit over safety.
The timeline for resolution is uncertain. Complex litigation of this kind typically takes years. Some cases may settle, particularly if discovery reveals damaging internal documents. Others may go to trial. Verdicts in early cases, if favorable to plaintiffs, could prompt broader settlements. Attorneys involved in the litigation have indicated they expect the number of cases to grow significantly as awareness spreads.
Several state attorneys general have opened investigations into the marketing and business practices of sports betting companies, though no enforcement actions have been filed as of this writing. Legislators in some states have introduced bills to impose stricter regulations on mobile betting platforms, including mandatory bet limits, enhanced responsible gambling tools, and restrictions on advertising. The industry has opposed these measures.
People who believe they were harmed by sports betting apps are consulting with attorneys to evaluate potential claims. The legal theories being pursued are novel in some respects, as courts have not previously addressed whether a gambling operator can be held liable for addiction caused by platform design features. But the lawsuits draw on established principles of product liability, which hold that companies can be responsible for harms caused by dangerous product designs, even when the product is legal and regulated.
What distinguishes these cases from traditional gambling is the allegation that the companies engineered their platforms to maximize addictive behavior using techniques borrowed from social media, video games, and casino gambling, creating a product far more dangerous than traditional sports betting. The litigation argues that the companies had a duty to design their platforms safely, or at minimum to warn users of the addiction risks, and that they breached that duty.
What happened to you was not a failure of willpower. It was not a moral weakness. It was not bad luck. The lawsuits allege it was the result of a business model built on behavioral psychology and refined through data analysis to keep you betting more, longer, and past the point where you wanted to stop. The platform was designed to feel frictionless, to make the next bet as easy as a tap, to send you a notification at the moment you were most likely to respond, to reward you just often enough to keep you hoping, and to keep your money in play.
You were not gambling the way your grandparents gambled, with a trip to a casino and a set amount of cash in your pocket. You were interacting with a product designed by teams of engineers and data scientists whose job was to maximize your engagement, which is a corporate euphemism for the amount of time and money you spent. The companies knew what they built. The lawsuits allege they knew the harm it caused. And they made a choice. You are not responsible for that choice. They are.