You told yourself it was just entertainment. A way to make watching the game more interesting. Five dollars here, ten dollars there. The app made it so easy—bright colors, instant action, a notification whenever your team scored. Then the bets got bigger. You started checking scores in the middle of work meetings, during dinner, at 2 a.m. when you could not sleep because you were calculating what you had lost. You borrowed money you did not have. You lied to people you love. And at some point, you realized you could not stop, even when you desperately wanted to.
When you finally admitted you had a problem—to yourself, to a counselor, to your family—you probably wondered how it happened so fast. You are not someone who lacks self-control. You did not grow up in a casino. You were just using an app on your phone, something millions of people do every day. Maybe you thought there was something uniquely wrong with you, some weakness of character that made you vulnerable when others could walk away. Maybe your therapist explained that gambling disorder is a recognized mental health condition, but you still could not shake the shame, the feeling that you should have been stronger.
What you may not know is that lawsuits filed across the country allege that the companies behind the biggest sports betting apps—DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM—designed their platforms using psychological tactics specifically intended to keep users engaged and betting, even when those users showed clear signs of gambling disorder. The litigation claims these companies had research showing the addiction risks of their products and made deliberate business decisions that prioritized growth and profit over user safety.
What Happened
Gambling disorder is a behavioral addiction recognized by the American Psychiatric Association. It changes the way your brain processes reward and risk. People with gambling disorder experience an overwhelming urge to gamble despite severe consequences. They chase losses, betting more to try to win back what they lost. They lie about the extent of their gambling. They jeopardize relationships, jobs, and financial stability. Many experience intense anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts.
The experience is not about enjoying a game or the thrill of possibly winning. It is compulsive. People describe feeling unable to stop even as they watch their savings disappear, even as they max out credit cards, even as their spouse threatens to leave. The brain begins to crave the activity itself, not the outcome. Every notification becomes a trigger. Every commercial becomes a reminder. The app is always there, always accessible, always offering another chance.
Financial devastation often follows quickly. Unlike traditional casino gambling, which requires planning and travel, mobile betting apps allow users to place bets instantly, anywhere, at any time. People report losing tens of thousands of dollars in a matter of months. Some lose their homes. Many declare bankruptcy. The debt accumulates faster than with almost any other form of gambling because there is no natural break, no moment when the casino closes or you have to physically leave.
Relationships fracture under the weight of lies and broken trust. Partners discover secret accounts and hidden debt. Parents miss their children's activities because they are absorbed in betting. Friends drift away. The isolation compounds the addiction, creating a cycle where gambling becomes the only source of dopamine in an otherwise collapsing life.
The Connection
Sports betting apps create and exploit gambling disorder through specific design features that research has linked to addictive behavior. These are not incidental effects. According to studies in addiction medicine and behavioral psychology, certain features dramatically increase the risk of developing gambling disorder.
The first is speed. Mobile sports betting allows users to place bets and receive results in seconds. A 2019 study published in the International Gambling Studies journal found that faster bet resolution is directly correlated with higher rates of gambling disorder. The rapid cycle of bet-result-bet does not allow time for reflection or emotional regulation. The brain remains in a state of heightened arousal, chasing the next outcome.
The second is accessibility. Having a gambling platform available 24 hours a day on a device people carry everywhere eliminates natural barriers that traditionally limited gambling behavior. A 2020 study in the Journal of Behavioral Addictions found that mobile gambling was associated with significantly higher rates of problem gambling compared to land-based gambling, specifically because of constant access.
The third is in-play betting, which allows users to place wagers during a game on events that will happen in the next few seconds or minutes. Research published in 2021 in Computers in Human Behavior found that in-play betting dramatically increased both the time spent gambling and the total amount wagered, and was associated with higher rates of loss-chasing behavior.
The fourth is the use of bonuses, promotions, and free bets that create what researchers call the illusion of control and reduced risk. Users receive offers that make them feel they are betting with house money, which reduces the psychological pain of losing and encourages riskier bets. A 2018 study in the Journal of Gambling Studies found that promotional offers were a significant predictor of gambling problems among online bettors.
The platforms also use push notifications to bring users back to the app. These alerts are timed to moments of high engagement—when a game is about to start, when a team scores, when a promoted bet is available. Neuroscience research has shown that these unpredictable rewards activate the same dopamine pathways involved in substance addiction.
What The Lawsuits Allege They Knew
Lawsuits filed against DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM allege that these companies were aware of the addiction risks their platforms created and chose to prioritize growth over user protection. The complaints cite internal research, public statements, and industry practices that the plaintiffs say demonstrate a pattern of deliberate decisions to maximize engagement even among vulnerable users.
According to complaints filed in multiple jurisdictions in 2023 and 2024, DraftKings and FanDuel entered the sports betting market following the 2018 Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. NCAA, which allowed states to legalize sports betting. The lawsuits allege that both companies, which had previously operated daily fantasy sports platforms, understood from their earlier operations that certain design features drove compulsive use.
Court filings claim that internal documents show these companies studied user engagement metrics obsessively, tracking how often users opened the app, how long they stayed, how much they wagered, and what features kept them betting. The lawsuits allege that rather than using this data to identify and protect problem gamblers, the companies used it to refine features that increased betting frequency and volume.
One lawsuit filed in 2024 alleges that FanDuel conducted research on the effectiveness of promotional offers and found that personalized bonuses sent via push notification significantly increased betting activity among users who had previously reduced their gambling. The complaint claims that rather than viewing this as a red flag indicating potential addiction, the company expanded the use of these targeted promotions.
Complaints against DraftKings allege that the company implemented algorithms designed to send notifications at times when individual users were most likely to place a bet, based on their historical behavior. The lawsuits claim this personalized targeting was specifically intended to re-engage users who had stopped betting, a practice the complaints characterize as predatory toward people attempting to control their gambling.
According to litigation against BetMGM, that company, which is a joint venture of MGM Resorts International and Entain, benefited from decades of casino industry research into addictive gambling behaviors. The lawsuits allege that BetMGM applied knowledge gained from land-based casino operations about which game features and reward structures were most likely to encourage compulsive play, and deliberately incorporated those features into their mobile platform.
Court filings cite public earnings calls and investor presentations in which executives from these companies celebrated user engagement metrics and growth in handle, which is the total amount wagered. The lawsuits allege that these presentations reveal a business model dependent on heavy users who bet frequently and in large amounts, a category that research shows overlaps significantly with problem gamblers.
A 2023 complaint quotes from a DraftKings investor presentation that highlighted monthly active user numbers and the percentage of users who were classified as high-value customers. The lawsuit alleges that the company knew, based on gambling research, that high-frequency betting is a key indicator of gambling disorder, yet the company built its growth strategy around increasing engagement from precisely these users.
The lawsuits also allege that these companies were aware of responsible gambling research and best practices recommended by organizations like the National Council on Problem Gambling, but chose not to implement many of those recommendations because doing so would reduce revenue. Complaints cite the existence of tools like deposit limits and self-exclusion programs, but allege these tools were buried in app settings, not promoted to users, and designed in ways that made them difficult to use effectively.
According to court filings, some jurisdictions where sports betting is legal require operators to contribute funding to problem gambling services and to display responsible gambling messages. The lawsuits allege that the companies treated these requirements as minimal compliance obligations and devoted vastly more resources to marketing and user acquisition than to problem gambling prevention.
What The Lawsuits Say About Concealment
Beyond allegations about what the companies knew, the litigation includes claims about what they concealed. Court filings allege that DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM actively worked to downplay addiction risks and to prevent effective regulation of their most problematic features.
Complaints filed in 2024 allege that the companies funded and promoted research that emphasized the entertainment value of sports betting while minimizing addiction risks. The lawsuits claim this research was used in lobbying efforts as states considered legalizing sports betting, presenting mobile betting as a safe, recreational activity comparable to other forms of entertainment.
According to the litigation, the companies spent millions on advertising that portrayed sports betting as a normal part of watching sports, using celebrity endorsers and saturation advertising during major sporting events. The lawsuits allege that these advertising campaigns deliberately targeted young men, a demographic that research identifies as particularly vulnerable to gambling disorder. Court filings claim the companies knew that early exposure to gambling, particularly during young adulthood, significantly increases the risk of developing a gambling disorder.
The complaints also allege that when media outlets and researchers began publishing studies showing high rates of gambling disorder among sports betting app users, the companies issued public statements emphasizing their commitment to responsible gambling while privately continuing to use the same engagement-maximizing design features. The lawsuits characterize these statements as misleading and intended to forestall regulation.
One line of allegations in the litigation concerns the companies' response to problem gamblers who contacted customer service or used self-exclusion tools. Court filings claim that in some cases, users who self-excluded from one platform received marketing materials encouraging them to sign up for a related or sister platform operated by the same parent company. The lawsuits allege this practice violated the spirit, if not the letter, of responsible gambling commitments.
The complaints also describe allegations that the companies lobbied against state regulations that would have required more robust responsible gambling features, such as mandatory timeouts after a certain amount of continuous play, limits on in-play betting, or algorithms to detect and intervene with users showing signs of problem gambling. The lawsuits claim these lobbying efforts were conducted quietly, through industry groups and political contributions, with the goal of maintaining a regulatory environment that allowed maximum user engagement.
According to the litigation, the companies also worked to prevent the collection and publication of data that would reveal the true rates of gambling disorder among app users. Court filings allege that the companies argued against reporting requirements that would have made such data available to regulators and researchers, claiming user privacy concerns while actually seeking to avoid transparency about the harms their platforms were causing.
Why Your Doctor May Not Have Told You
If you developed gambling disorder from using a sports betting app, your doctor may not have warned you about the risks beforehand, and there are systemic reasons for that gap in information. Unlike prescription medications, which come with FDA-mandated warnings and are dispensed by trained pharmacists, betting apps are marketed directly to consumers as entertainment products. There is no healthcare gatekeeper reviewing whether you are at risk.
Gambling disorder is also a relatively new focus in primary care medicine. While most doctors are trained to screen for substance use disorders, many do not routinely screen for behavioral addictions. The integration of gambling disorder screening into standard mental health assessments has been slow, particularly as mobile sports betting has only been widely legal since 2018.
The lawsuits allege that the companies did little to educate healthcare providers about the risks of their platforms. Unlike pharmaceutical companies, which are required to provide detailed risk information to prescribers, betting companies had no obligation to ensure that doctors understood the addiction potential of mobile gambling. Court filings claim the companies preferred this information gap because it meant fewer barriers between potential users and their platforms.
There is also the matter of how gambling disorder is understood culturally. For decades, problem gambling was viewed as a moral failing or a lack of willpower rather than a medical condition. Even as the psychiatric establishment came to recognize gambling disorder as a legitimate diagnosis, that understanding spread slowly through the broader medical community. The lawsuits allege that betting companies benefited from this lag, operating in an environment where users and their doctors underestimated the risks.
The speed of mobile sports betting adoption also outpaced the healthcare system's ability to respond. Between 2018 and 2023, sports betting became legal in more than 30 states, and tens of millions of people downloaded betting apps. The explosion of access happened faster than medical education could adapt. Court filings suggest the companies understood they were operating ahead of public health awareness and used that window to establish their user base before regulations or medical guidance caught up.
Who Is Affected
The lawsuits describe a broad group of people who developed gambling disorder after using sports betting apps. You may be part of this group if you started using DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM, or similar platforms after they became legal in your state and subsequently developed symptoms of gambling disorder.
Those symptoms include betting more money than you could afford to lose, repeatedly trying to cut back or stop but being unable to, thinking about betting constantly, using betting to escape problems or relieve anxiety or depression, chasing losses by betting more to try to win back what you lost, lying to family or friends about your gambling, and jeopardizing relationships or employment because of betting.
Many of the people affected describe a similar pattern: they started with small bets, often using promotional offers or free bets provided by the apps. The betting was fun at first, a way to make games more exciting. But over time, the frequency increased. They began betting on games they did not care about, on sports they did not follow. The app became a constant presence. They checked it throughout the day. They felt anxious when they could not access it. They kept betting even after significant losses, telling themselves they would stop after they won back what they had lost.
The financial losses vary widely but are often devastating. Some people report losing thousands of dollars within months of opening an account. Others lost six figures over a year or two. Many used credit cards, took out loans, or borrowed from family members to continue betting. Some emptied retirement accounts or college savings funds. The losses often accelerated over time as users became desensitized to the amounts they were wagering.
The demographic most represented in the lawsuits are men between the ages of 21 and 45, but women and older adults are affected as well. Geographic location matters primarily in terms of when sports betting became legal in your state, as that determined when you could have been exposed to these platforms.
What matters for potential legal claims is not just the diagnosis or the financial loss, but the timeline: when you started using the app, what features you used most frequently, whether you tried to stop or set limits, and whether you experienced the kind of design features the lawsuits allege were deliberately addictive.
Where Things Stand
Litigation against sports betting companies is in its early stages but growing. Multiple lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts since 2023, alleging that DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM, and other operators used predatory design practices and failed to protect users from gambling disorder.
These cases are proceeding as individual lawsuits and, in some jurisdictions, as potential class actions. The legal theories vary but generally include claims of negligence, fraud, unfair and deceptive business practices, and unjust enrichment. Some complaints also allege violations of state consumer protection statutes.
The companies have moved to dismiss many of these cases, arguing that they complied with state gaming regulations and that users were aware gambling involves risk. Courts are in the early stages of evaluating these arguments. Some cases have survived motions to dismiss and are moving into discovery, the phase where plaintiffs can request internal company documents, communications, and research.
There have not yet been major settlements or jury verdicts in these cases, in part because the litigation is so recent. However, attorneys involved in the cases have indicated they are finding evidence through discovery that supports the allegations in the complaints. The outcomes of the earliest cases to reach trial will likely influence whether more people come forward and whether the companies choose to settle.
Similar litigation against social casino apps and skill-based gaming platforms has resulted in settlements in recent years, establishing some precedent for the argument that companies can be held liable for using design features known to cause addictive behavior. Those cases, while not identical, provide a legal framework that attorneys are adapting to sports betting claims.
Regulatory scrutiny is also increasing. Several state gaming commissions have opened investigations into responsible gambling practices at major sports betting operators. In 2024, some states began considering legislation that would ban or restrict certain features like in-play betting and personalized push notifications. The lawsuits are serving as a catalyst for these regulatory discussions, bringing to light internal company practices that were not previously public.
For individuals considering legal action, the window to file varies by state. Statutes of limitations for these types of claims typically range from one to four years from the time the injury was discovered or should have been discovered. Given that mobile sports betting only became widely available starting in 2018, most potential claims are still within applicable limitation periods.
Attorneys handling these cases are reviewing claims individually, evaluating the strength of each potential lawsuit based on the specific facts of app use, financial losses, medical diagnosis, and timing. The litigation is complex and requires substantial documentation, but it is moving forward.
What This Means For You
If you developed gambling disorder after using a sports betting app, what happened to you was not a personal failing. It was not bad luck or weak character. The lawsuits allege it was the result of deliberate design choices made by companies that studied how to keep you engaged and betting, even when that engagement became compulsive and destructive.
The shame you feel is real, but it is not justified by the facts. You were not using a neutral platform that merely facilitated an activity you chose freely. According to the allegations in the litigation, you were using a product engineered to exploit psychological vulnerabilities, to deliver dopamine hits on a schedule calculated to maximize your continued use, to bring you back whenever you tried to leave. The companies built systems to identify when you were most susceptible and to reach you in those moments. They made it as easy as possible to bet and as difficult as possible to stop.
The financial ruin, the broken relationships, the months or years lost to an obsession you could not control—the lawsuits allege these were foreseeable consequences of a business model that valued growth over safety. You did not fail. A system failed you. And that system, according to the litigation, was constructed intentionally by people who had access to research showing exactly what would happen.