You started placing bets during a game with friends. Maybe it was March Madness, or football season, or just a random Tuesday night. The app made it easy—one touch, instant action, a small thrill. You told yourself it was entertainment, that you had it under control. But somewhere along the way, the stopping part became impossible. You found yourself placing bets at work, in the bathroom, at 3 am when you could not sleep because of what you had already lost. You borrowed money you could not pay back. You lied to people you love. And when you finally admitted you needed help, when a counselor or therapist told you that you were experiencing gambling disorder, you felt a crushing shame—like this was a moral failure, a lack of willpower, something fundamentally broken in your character.
What you may not know is that your experience follows a pattern. Thousands of people who never had gambling problems before downloaded a sports betting app in the last few years and found themselves unable to stop. They describe the same progression: casual interest, then daily use, then compulsive betting they could not control no matter how much they lost. Many of them were placed in treatment programs where clinicians observed symptoms that looked less like traditional gambling addiction and more like the behavioral patterns seen in people who have been exposed to deliberately engineered digital environments designed to maximize engagement at any cost.
The lawsuits now being filed against DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM allege that what happened to you was not a personal failing. Court filings claim these companies built their platforms using the same behavioral design techniques that have made social media and mobile games so difficult to put down—then deployed those techniques in an environment where the consequences were not just lost time, but lost savings, destroyed credit, and shattered families. What follows is what the litigation alleges, what the public record shows, and who may qualify to join these cases.
What Happened
Gambling disorder is a recognized psychiatric condition, but the experience of it is intensely personal and often hidden until the damage becomes impossible to conceal. People describe it as an overwhelming compulsion to keep betting despite knowing rationally that they cannot afford to lose, that their relationships are fracturing, that they have crossed lines they never imagined crossing.
The pattern often starts with wins or near-wins that create a rush of excitement. The apps make it seamless to place another bet immediately. You begin checking odds throughout the day. You start betting on games you do not care about, sports you do not follow, just to have action. The losses start to mount, and instead of stopping, you feel an urgent need to win it back. You bet bigger. You take out loans, drain savings accounts, ask family members for money under false pretenses.
The emotional landscape becomes dominated by anxiety, shame, and a frantic hope that the next bet will fix everything. Many people describe feeling like they are watching themselves make destructive decisions but cannot stop. They miss work. They withdraw from relationships. Some experience suicidal thoughts when the financial devastation becomes clear. The psychological research on gambling disorder describes it as involving the same brain pathways as substance addiction, with similar patterns of tolerance, withdrawal, and loss of control.
For people who developed these symptoms after downloading mobile sports betting apps, the speed of the decline is often shocking. Unlike traveling to a casino, which requires planning and physical presence, app-based betting is available every moment of every day. The apps send notifications. They offer promotional bets. They make it possible to place dozens or hundreds of bets in a single session. Many users report that within months of downloading the app, they were betting amounts that represented their entire paycheck, their rent money, their children's college funds.
The Connection
The question at the center of these lawsuits is whether mobile sports betting apps are simply a convenient platform for an activity that has always carried risk, or whether they represent something categorically different—a product engineered using behavioral science to maximize compulsive use in ways that traditional gambling environments do not.
Research on behavioral design and addiction has been building for decades. A 2018 study published in the journal Psychology of Addictive Behaviors found that the speed of a gambling event—the time between placing a bet and learning the outcome—is one of the strongest predictors of addictive potential. Mobile betting apps allow users to place bets that resolve in seconds, creating hundreds of dopamine-triggering cycles in a single hour. Researchers call this high-frequency, low-interval gambling, and studies have consistently found it more addictive than traditional betting.
The apps also use variable reward schedules, a behavioral principle famously studied by psychologist B.F. Skinner in the mid-20th century. Variable rewards—where you cannot predict when a win will come—create more persistent behavior than predictable rewards. Slot machines have long used this principle. Mobile betting apps take it further, offering instant micro-bets on everything from the next pitch in a baseball game to whether a basketball player will make the next free throw. Each one is a pull of the lever.
A 2020 study in the International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction examined the design features of gambling apps and identified multiple elements associated with problem gambling: push notifications that prompt betting, in-app promotions that encourage continued play, gamification features like leaderboards and achievement badges, and interfaces that minimize awareness of how much money is being spent. The researchers noted that these features are not accidental—they are the product of design teams that include behavioral psychologists and data scientists whose job is to maximize user engagement.
The lawsuits allege that the betting companies understood this. Court filings claim that these platforms were built with the explicit goal of increasing what the industry calls time on platform and lifetime value—metrics that translate directly to how much money a user will lose before they stop using the app. The complaints assert that people who were not previously problem gamblers were targeted with design features calibrated to create compulsive use, and that the companies did this while knowing from both public research and their own internal data that a significant percentage of their revenue would come from people who had lost control.
What The Lawsuits Allege They Knew
The litigation against DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM includes allegations about what these companies knew regarding addiction risk and when they knew it. These are claims being made in court filings, not established facts unless otherwise noted, and they are contested by the defendants.
According to complaints filed in multiple jurisdictions beginning in 2023, the sports betting companies had access to extensive research on gambling addiction and behavioral design before launching their mobile platforms. A 2012 study published in the Journal of Gambling Studies, years before these apps became widely available, documented that electronic gambling products with high event frequency were associated with significantly higher rates of problem gambling than traditional sports betting. The lawsuits allege that the companies were aware of this literature.
Court filings cite testimony from a 2022 congressional hearing on sports betting, where lawmakers questioned industry representatives about responsible gaming measures. According to the hearing record, representatives from major betting companies acknowledged that they employ teams of behavioral scientists and user experience designers whose work includes studying how to increase user engagement. The lawsuits allege that these design decisions were made with knowledge that increased engagement in a gambling context directly correlates with increased harm for vulnerable users.
The complaints reference regulatory filings made by these companies in states that were legalizing sports betting between 2018 and 2021. According to documents disclosed in the litigation, these filings included data on user behavior that allegedly showed a small percentage of users—often estimated at 10 to 15 percent—accounted for a disproportionate share of revenue, in some cases more than half. The lawsuits allege that this pattern is consistent with revenue derived from problem gambling, and that the companies were aware of this distribution.
A 2021 Reuters investigation, cited in some of the complaints, found that some sports betting companies tracked metrics internally that identified likely problem gamblers but continued to market aggressively to those users. According to the Reuters report, one company used predictive models to identify customers at risk of gambling addiction, but the primary purpose was reportedly to predict which users might self-exclude or stop betting, so that retention efforts could be targeted at them before they quit. The lawsuits allege this reflects a business model that depends on exploiting addiction.
Court filings also point to the timing and content of responsible gaming features. The lawsuits allege that deposit limits, self-exclusion options, and reality-check notifications were designed to be minimally effective—placed in obscure menu locations, easy to disable or increase, and accompanied by messaging that discouraged their use. The complaints claim that internal communications, if disclosed through discovery, will show that the companies tested these features and understood that making them more prominent or more restrictive would reduce revenue, and that business considerations prevailed over safety.
What The Lawsuits Say About Concealment
Beyond what the companies knew, the litigation makes specific allegations about how risk information was presented to the public, to regulators, and to users. These remain allegations unless a court or settlement establishes them as fact.
The complaints allege that the sports betting industry funded research designed to minimize the appearance of harm. Court filings claim that industry-supported studies focused on the benefits of legalization—such as consumer protection compared to illegal betting markets—while downplaying addiction risks. The lawsuits assert that some of this research was cited in lobbying materials provided to state legislatures considering legalization, and that it presented a misleading picture of the safety profile of mobile betting.
Some complaints allege that the companies used terms like responsible gaming and player protection in marketing and regulatory materials, while simultaneously designing their products to maximize compulsive use. The lawsuits claim this represents a form of concealment—publicly emphasizing safety while privately optimizing for addiction. Plaintiffs point to the contrast between responsible gaming policies described in corporate materials and the actual user experience of constant notifications, aggressive promotions, and interfaces that make it easy to lose track of spending.
The litigation also references non-disclosure agreements used in employment contracts and in settlements of prior disputes. While the specific contents of these agreements are not public, the complaints allege that such NDAs have been used to prevent employees, contractors, and former users from speaking publicly about internal practices related to addictive design and the targeting of vulnerable users. The lawsuits argue that this constitutes a pattern of concealment that prevented regulators and the public from understanding the true risk profile of these platforms.
Court filings further allege that the companies used mandatory arbitration clauses in their terms of service to prevent users who experienced harm from bringing public lawsuits. The complaints assert that this was a deliberate strategy to keep allegations of addictive design and predatory practices out of public court records where they might attract regulatory attention or inform other users of the risks.
Why Your Doctor May Not Have Told You
If you spoke to a physician or mental health provider before downloading a betting app, it is unlikely they warned you about the specific risks of mobile sports gambling. That silence was not because the risk was unknown in the medical and psychological literature—studies on gambling disorder have been published for decades. But the specific dangers of app-based, high-frequency betting platforms were not widely communicated to healthcare providers, and the lawsuits allege this gap was not accidental.
Gambling disorder has historically been treated as a matter of personal responsibility rather than a public health issue. Unlike prescription drugs, which come with FDA-mandated warnings and are prescribed by doctors who receive risk information, gambling products are consumer services. There is no system for alerting physicians when a new form of gambling with heightened addiction potential becomes available. When sports betting apps launched in dozens of states between 2018 and 2023, there was no public health campaign to inform doctors about the risks, no warning labels on the apps, no screening protocols added to primary care visits.
The lawsuits allege that the betting companies actively avoided framing their products as high-risk for addiction. Court filings claim that marketing materials and public statements emphasized entertainment and social engagement, not the psychological mechanisms that make the platforms difficult to stop using. The complaints assert that by positioning sports betting as a mainstream leisure activity rather than a product with serious addiction potential, the companies ensured that it would not receive the scrutiny or the health warnings that might have reached physicians and potential users.
Mental health professionals who specialize in addiction have raised alarms. A 2023 position paper from the National Council on Problem Gambling noted that the rapid expansion of mobile sports betting had outpaced the capacity of treatment systems and that many clinicians were seeing patients with gambling problems for the first time, lacking training in how to assess or treat the condition. The paper called for increased provider education, but the lawsuits allege that the industry opposed efforts to mandate warnings or fund independent treatment and education programs at a scale proportional to the harm being caused.
For individual users, this meant that the risk information simply was not in circulation in the places where people make health decisions. Your doctor did not warn you because they did not know the specific risks of these platforms. The apps themselves did not provide meaningful warnings—responsible gaming messages were brief, generic, and easy to ignore. And by the time you realized you were losing control, the shame and secrecy that accompany gambling disorder often prevented you from seeking help until the consequences were severe.
Who Is Affected
The lawsuits being filed against DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM involve people who developed gambling disorder after using mobile sports betting apps. If you are reading this and recognizing your own experience, here is what the litigation generally looks for in terms of qualifying criteria.
You used one or more of these mobile betting platforms. This usually means you downloaded the app, created an account, deposited money, and placed bets. The lawsuits involve people who did this after the apps became legally available in their state, which for most states means sometime between 2018 and 2023, though a few states legalized earlier or later.
You developed symptoms of gambling disorder that you did not have before using the app. This is not a clinical diagnosis you necessarily need to have received formally, though if you were evaluated by a counselor, therapist, or treatment program, that documentation can be relevant. What matters is the experience: you found yourself unable to stop betting despite negative consequences, you bet more than you could afford to lose, you lied to family or friends about your gambling, you borrowed or stole money to fund betting, you experienced significant emotional distress related to gambling losses, or you continued to bet despite knowing it was damaging your finances, relationships, or mental health.
You suffered measurable harm. The lawsuits involve people who lost significant amounts of money—often tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars, though there is no single threshold. The harm can also include damaged credit, lost employment, bankruptcy, divorce or relationship breakdown, and psychological injury including anxiety, depression, or suicidal ideation. The key is that the harm is substantial and directly connected to your use of the app.
The timeline matters. Most cases involve people who were active users within the last several years. If you used the app heavily in 2020 and have not bet since, or if you are still currently struggling with compulsive betting, either situation can be relevant. Statutes of limitations vary by state, but many of these cases are being evaluated for people whose harm occurred or is ongoing within the past three to five years.
You do not need to have been completely naive about gambling. Some people in these lawsuits had placed bets before—maybe occasionally in a casino, or in an office pool. What distinguishes these cases is the loss of control that developed specifically in the context of using the mobile app. If you had gambled casually for years without problems, then downloaded a betting app and within months found yourself in financial crisis, that pattern is consistent with what the lawsuits allege about the addictive design of these platforms.
There is no requirement that you win or lose a certain percentage of your bets. Gambling disorder is not about whether you are bad at predicting outcomes. It is about whether you lost the ability to stop. People with gambling disorder sometimes have winning periods, which often makes the compulsion worse because it creates hope that you can win back what you lost. The lawsuits focus on the design features that kept you betting, not on the outcomes of individual wagers.
Where Things Stand
Litigation against sports betting companies is in relatively early stages compared to more established mass torts, but the legal landscape is developing quickly. As of late 2024 and into 2025, individual lawsuits and class action complaints have been filed in multiple states, including New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and others where mobile sports betting is legal and widely used.
The complaints assert claims including negligence, product liability, fraud, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and violations of consumer protection statutes. The core legal theory is that the companies designed a defective product—a platform engineered to be addictive—and failed to warn users of the risks, while knowingly profiting from people who lost control. Some complaints also include claims under state laws that prohibit unfair business practices, arguing that exploiting behavioral vulnerabilities to maximize revenue from addicted users is an unlawful business model.
No large settlements or verdicts have been reached in these cases as of early 2025, which is typical for litigation that is still in its initial phases. The companies have moved to dismiss some complaints, arguing that gambling is a lawful activity, that users voluntarily chose to bet, and that responsible gaming tools were available. Those motions are being litigated. In some jurisdictions, judges have allowed cases to proceed past early dismissal motions, finding that the allegations about addictive design and failure to warn are sufficient to warrant further proceedings including discovery.
Discovery—the phase where plaintiffs can obtain internal documents, communications, and data from the companies—is expected to be critical in these cases. The lawsuits allege that internal emails, research reports, and user data will show that the companies knew their platforms were causing gambling disorder in a significant number of users and made deliberate decisions to prioritize revenue over safety. If discovery produces such documents, it could substantially strengthen the cases and increase the likelihood of settlements.
Several law firms are investigating claims and filing cases on behalf of individuals. Some are also exploring class action certifications, which would allow cases to proceed on behalf of large groups of affected users. Class certification is often contested and can take years to resolve, but it remains a possible path for this litigation.
The timeline for resolution is uncertain. Mass tort cases involving allegations of defective design and corporate knowledge often take several years to reach settlements or trials. Early bellwether trials—test cases chosen to go to trial first—could occur within the next one to three years if the litigation proceeds on a typical schedule. Outcomes in those trials often influence whether companies choose to settle the broader litigation.
Regulatory developments may also affect the legal landscape. Some state legislatures and gambling regulators have begun examining sports betting practices in response to rising reports of gambling-related harm. If new regulations are imposed requiring design changes, enhanced warnings, or funding for treatment programs, that could be seen as an implicit acknowledgment of the risks the lawsuits allege, and might influence settlement discussions.
For individuals considering whether to pursue a case, the practical considerations include statutes of limitations, which vary by state and by the legal theory being asserted. Consulting with attorneys who are actively working on this litigation can provide clarity on whether your specific situation falls within the applicable time limits and meets the criteria that firms are using to evaluate cases.
What is clear is that the legal system is beginning to scrutinize whether mobile sports betting companies bear responsibility for the wave of gambling disorder that has followed the rapid expansion of their platforms. The lawsuits represent an effort to hold these companies accountable for what plaintiffs allege was a knowing choice to profit from addiction.
You were not weak. You were not uniquely vulnerable. You were not failing at something others manage easily. What happened to you happened to thousands of people who made the same seemingly innocuous decision—to download an app that was advertised constantly, that was legal and regulated, that seemed like harmless fun. The lawsuits allege that the app you downloaded was designed by teams of scientists and engineers who understood exactly how to make it difficult to stop using, who tested and refined those features, and who built a business model that depended on a percentage of users losing control. The harm you experienced, the money you lost, the relationships that fractured, the shame you carried—the litigation alleges these were foreseeable outcomes of deliberate design decisions, not evidence of your personal failure.
What you do with that information is your choice. But you deserve to know that what felt like a private collapse, a secret spiral that proved something broken in you, was in fact part of a documented pattern that is now being examined in courts across the country. The lawsuits allege that the companies knew, that they built their platforms to exploit the very vulnerabilities you experienced, and that they did it for profit. Whether you choose to participate in this litigation or not, that truth stands. You were not the problem. The product was.