You told yourself it was just entertainment. A way to make the games more exciting. Five dollars here, twenty there, nothing you could not afford. Then the losses started coming faster, and you found yourself opening the app at work, during family dinners, in the middle of the night. You deposited more to chase what you lost. You borrowed money you did not have. You told people you were fine even as your savings drained away, even as the shame became unbearable, even as you realized you could not stop even when you desperately wanted to.
When you finally spoke to someone about it, when a counselor or therapist explained that what you were experiencing was gambling disorder, you probably assumed this was a personal failing. A lack of willpower. A character flaw you should have been strong enough to overcome. You may have believed that millions of people use these apps without problems, so the fact that you could not control it meant something was wrong with you specifically.
But court filings now allege something different. Lawsuits filed against DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM claim these companies built their platforms using psychological techniques specifically designed to maximize betting frequency and intensity, employed algorithms that targeted vulnerable users with personalized inducements, and created features that behavioral scientists have long associated with addiction, all while knowing the foreseeable harm to a subset of users. What happened to you, according to these complaints, was not a personal failure. The lawsuits allege it was the intended outcome of a business model.
What Happened
Gambling disorder is a recognized behavioral addiction that fundamentally changes how your brain responds to risk and reward. People who develop it describe an overwhelming compulsion to bet that overrides rational decision-making. You know the odds are against you. You know you cannot afford to lose more. You know your relationships are suffering. But the urge to place another bet becomes more powerful than those facts.
The experience often begins gradually. Early wins create a sense of control and excitement. The apps make betting seamless and instant. You can place a wager in seconds, from anywhere, at any time of day or night. There is no casino to drive to, no physical cash changing hands, no moment of friction that might prompt reconsideration. The money feels abstract until suddenly it is devastatingly real.
As the disorder progresses, people describe needing to bet with increasing frequency and larger amounts to achieve the same feeling. They spend hours they do not have on the apps. They hide their activity from family members. They deplete savings accounts, max out credit cards, and borrow from friends under false pretenses. The shame becomes crushing, but the compulsion remains stronger.
Many people report that losses intensify the urge to continue rather than discourage it. This is not illogical thinking, it is a documented feature of how these platforms are designed to function. The need to win back what was lost, to prove that the next bet will be different, becomes overwhelming. People describe feeling like they are watching themselves make destructive choices while being unable to stop. They experience anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts at rates far higher than the general population. Relationships collapse. Jobs are lost. In the most severe cases, people lose housing, file for bankruptcy, or face criminal charges after stealing to fund their betting.
This is not recreational entertainment that got slightly out of hand. This is a diagnosable psychiatric condition that the American Psychiatric Association categorizes alongside substance use disorders, with similar patterns of tolerance, withdrawal, and loss of control.
The Connection
The lawsuits allege that sports betting apps were engineered using behavioral psychology research to maximize addictive potential. These are not neutral platforms that simply allow people to place bets. According to the complaints, they employ dozens of design features that exploit known vulnerabilities in human decision-making and reward processing.
The technology allows for something called variable ratio reinforcement, which behavioral scientists have studied since the 1950s. Research published by B.F. Skinner demonstrated that rewards delivered on an unpredictable schedule create more persistent behavior than any other reinforcement pattern. Slot machines were built on this principle. The lawsuits allege that sports betting apps replicated it in digital form, with hundreds of betting opportunities available simultaneously, each offering the possibility of an unpredictable win.
In-play or live betting, which allows users to place wagers continuously while a game is in progress, is central to many of the complaints. A study published in the International Gambling Studies journal in 2018 found that live betting significantly increased both the frequency of bets and the total amount wagered compared to traditional pre-game betting. The research noted that the rapid pace and continuous availability created what researchers called a flow state, where users lost track of time and money spent. The lawsuits allege that the companies expanded live betting features while knowing these findings.
The apps also employ what the complaints describe as near-miss programming, where bets come close to winning by narrow margins. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Gambling Studies found that near-miss outcomes activate reward centers in the brain similarly to actual wins, encouraging continued play despite net losses. Researchers noted this effect was particularly pronounced in individuals who went on to develop gambling disorder.
Push notifications are another feature highlighted in the litigation. The lawsuits allege these alerts were timed and personalized using data analytics to reach users when they were most likely to bet. A 2020 study from the University of Sydney examined push notification patterns from betting apps and found they increased betting frequency by an average of 38 percent among regular users, with higher increases among those classified as at-risk gamblers based on their betting patterns.
The platforms also offer what are called risk-free bets or bonus bets, which the complaints allege create an illusion of safety while increasing overall losses. These promotions typically require users to bet their own money first, with the bonus only applied after a loss and under conditions that necessitate additional wagering. Research published in the Journal of Behavioral Addictions in 2021 found that users who engaged with promotional offers bet 4.7 times more frequently than those who did not, and were significantly more likely to meet clinical criteria for gambling disorder within six months.
The apps track thousands of data points about user behavior: how often you bet, what types of bets you place, when you are most active, how you respond to wins and losses, when you are likely to stop, and what inducements bring you back. The lawsuits allege this data was used to create personalized interfaces that maximized engagement, particularly among users exhibiting signs of problem gambling, such as chasing losses or betting at high frequencies.
Crucially, the complaints allege the companies had access to research showing that a predictable percentage of users would develop gambling disorder when exposed to these features, and that these users would generate a disproportionate share of company revenue. This was not an unforeseen side effect. According to the lawsuits, it was a foreseeable outcome that was factored into the business model.
What The Lawsuits Allege They Knew
The timeline of corporate knowledge described in the complaints spans more than a decade, beginning before mobile sports betting became legal in most states.
According to court filings, DraftKings and FanDuel both operated as daily fantasy sports platforms beginning in 2009 and 2012, respectively. Lawsuits cite internal research reports from this period in which the companies analyzed user behavior data and found that a small percentage of highly active users generated the majority of revenue. The complaints allege these reports identified behavioral patterns consistent with problem gambling, including high-frequency play, chasing losses, and continued activity despite net financial losses.
A 2016 presentation disclosed in litigation discovery allegedly showed that FanDuel executives discussed the psychological mechanisms that drove user retention, including variable reward schedules and the use of near-miss outcomes in contest structures. The lawsuits claim the company understood these features increased addictive potential but expanded rather than limited their use.
In 2018, the Supreme Court struck down the federal prohibition on sports betting, allowing states to legalize it individually. According to the complaints, all three defendant companies moved aggressively into mobile sports betting while internal documents allegedly showed awareness of addiction risk. A 2019 internal memo referenced in litigation against DraftKings allegedly acknowledged that roughly 3 to 5 percent of users would likely meet clinical criteria for gambling disorder, and that this segment accounted for a disproportionately high percentage of revenue.
The lawsuits cite a 2020 study commissioned by BetMGM, disclosed during discovery, which allegedly examined user data and found that individuals who used the app daily and engaged with live betting features showed markers of problem gambling at rates five times higher than casual users. The complaint alleges the company responded by increasing push notification frequency to daily users rather than implementing protective measures.
Plaintiffs point to testimony from a 2021 Massachusetts Gaming Commission hearing in which a DraftKings executive was asked about responsible gambling measures. According to the hearing transcript cited in the complaints, the executive acknowledged the company used algorithms to personalize offers and notifications but stated these were designed to enhance user experience rather than specifically protect vulnerable individuals. The lawsuits allege this amounted to an admission that the company prioritized engagement over safety.
Court filings also reference a 2022 research partnership between FanDuel and a university behavioral science department. Documents disclosed in litigation allegedly show the research was designed to identify which app features most effectively increased betting frequency. The lawsuits claim the findings were used to refine the platform interface to maximize engagement, with no corresponding study into how to identify or protect users developing addiction.
In 2023, according to complaints filed in multiple jurisdictions, BetMGM launched an upgraded version of its app that introduced more live betting options and a feature allowing users to place multiple simultaneous bets on different aspects of the same game. Internal communications disclosed in discovery allegedly described the feature as designed to increase time on platform and average revenue per user, with no documentation of addiction risk assessment prior to launch.
The lawsuits also cite regulatory filings in which the parent companies reported annual revenue figures. DraftKings reported revenue of $1.3 billion in 2021 and $2.2 billion in 2022. FanDuel, owned by Flutter Entertainment, reported North American revenue of $2.9 billion in 2022. The complaints allege these growth figures were driven substantially by users with gambling disorder, and that internal data allowed the companies to identify and target these individuals while publicly describing their platforms as entertainment.
What The Lawsuits Say About Concealment
The complaints allege that the companies engaged in multiple forms of concealment regarding addiction risk.
Lawsuits claim that the defendants funded research into responsible gambling through industry groups and academic partnerships, but allegedly structured these arrangements to focus narrowly on user education and self-exclusion tools rather than examining whether the platform designs themselves were inherently addictive. According to court filings, documents show that research proposals examining the addictive potential of specific app features were declined or defunded.
The complaints also describe what they characterize as misleading public statements. Executives from all three companies have made public comments describing their platforms as entertainment and emphasizing that the majority of users bet responsibly. The lawsuits allege these statements omitted material facts: that the business model depended on the minority of users who could not control their use, and that internal data allowed the companies to identify these individuals and target them with personalized inducements.
Plaintiffs point to the responsible gambling features the companies do offer, such as deposit limits and self-exclusion options, and allege these were implemented in ways that minimized their effectiveness. According to court filings, internal testing data allegedly showed that optional controls were used by less than 2 percent of users, and that the companies did not default to protective settings or implement mandatory cooling-off periods despite research showing these measures reduce harm. The lawsuits claim this amounts to offering fig-leaf protections that allow the companies to claim they address addiction risk while designing the core platform to maximize it.
Court filings also allege that customer service representatives were trained to encourage continued betting rather than recognize and respond to signs of problem gambling. Complaints cite internal training materials and customer service scripts, disclosed in discovery, that allegedly instructed representatives to offer bonus bets and promotional credits to users who contacted the company to complain about losses or express concern about their betting behavior.
Some complaints include allegations regarding lobbying efforts. According to these filings, the companies spent millions on state-level lobbying as sports betting legislation was being debated, and allegedly advocated against regulatory provisions that would have required more stringent responsible gambling measures, such as mandatory play limits, real-time risk monitoring, or restrictions on live betting and promotional offers.
Why Your Doctor May Not Have Told You
Gambling disorder has historically been underrecognized in medical settings, and the rapid proliferation of mobile betting apps has outpaced clinical awareness.
Many primary care physicians do not routinely screen for gambling problems. Unlike alcohol or substance use, which are standard parts of medical histories, gambling behavior is often not discussed unless a patient raises it. The condition is stigmatized, and many people do not disclose it even when directly asked.
The clinical literature on gambling disorder has grown substantially in recent years, but much of that research has focused on casino gambling rather than mobile sports betting, which involves different behavioral patterns and technological features. A 2021 survey of primary care physicians published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine found that fewer than 15 percent felt confident identifying gambling disorder, and most were unaware of the diagnostic criteria.
The lawsuits allege that the sports betting companies did little to educate healthcare providers about the addiction potential of their platforms. Unlike pharmaceutical companies, which are required to provide risk information to prescribing physicians, betting companies face no such requirement. According to the complaints, the defendants did not fund medical education on gambling disorder, did not provide information to healthcare systems about warning signs, and did not create clinical resources to help physicians identify affected patients.
The apps also operate across state lines and reach users in settings where gambling was previously unavailable. Someone who would never have visited a casino or used an illegal bookmaker could download an app in seconds and begin betting immediately. This eliminated traditional barriers that might have prompted conversations with family or physicians. By the time someone recognized they had a problem, according to patterns described in the litigation, they had often already experienced severe financial and emotional harm.
Court filings also allege that the companies designed their platforms to keep activity private. Betting occurs on a personal device, losses are not visible to others, and the apps do not send paper statements or provide clear cumulative loss totals in user interfaces. The complaints claim this design choice was intentional, making it easier for users to hide their activity and harder for family members or healthcare providers to recognize a developing disorder.
Who Is Affected
If you used DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM, or other mobile sports betting platforms and developed gambling disorder, you may have experienced some or all of the following.
You downloaded the app after seeing advertisements or promotional offers, often including risk-free bets or matching deposits. You may have initially bet small amounts on games you were already watching. Over time, you began betting more frequently, on more games, including sports or events you had no prior interest in. You started using live betting features, placing wagers continuously during games rather than just before they started.
Your betting increased in frequency and amount. You found yourself thinking about betting when you were supposed to be focused on other things. You opened the app multiple times per day. You bet at work, while driving, during family events. You received push notifications that prompted you to bet even when you had not been thinking about it.
You experienced periods of winning that made you feel in control, followed by losses that you felt compelled to chase. You deposited more money to win back what you lost. You told yourself each bet would be the last, then continued. You borrowed money, used credit cards, or dipped into savings meant for other purposes.
You hid your betting from family members or lied about how much you were losing. You felt shame, anxiety, or depression related to your gambling. You tried to stop or cut back but found you could not sustain it. You continued betting despite knowing it was causing serious problems in your life.
You may have experienced financial devastation: depleted accounts, unpayable debts, ruined credit, or bankruptcy. You may have lost relationships, employment, or housing. You may have had thoughts of suicide or engaged in illegal activity to fund your betting.
The lawsuits generally involve people who used these apps after they launched mobile sports betting in 2018 or later, during the period when the design features described in the complaints were in use. There is no minimum or maximum amount of money that qualifies someone. The central question is whether you developed gambling disorder and whether the app features described in the litigation were present in the platform you used.
If you received treatment for gambling disorder, if a mental health professional diagnosed you with the condition, or if you can document the extent of your betting activity and losses, that information may be relevant. The lawsuits are in relatively early stages, and qualification criteria may evolve as the litigation progresses.
Where Things Stand
Lawsuits against DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM have been filed in multiple states, including Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. As of early 2025, the litigation is in the initial stages, with complaints filed and defendants beginning to respond.
The legal theories advanced in these cases include negligence, consumer protection violations, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and in some jurisdictions, claims specific to gambling regulation. Plaintiffs allege the companies failed to warn users of addiction risk, designed their platforms to be addictive, and targeted vulnerable users while knowing the harm that would result.
No settlements or verdicts have been reached yet. The defendants have moved to dismiss several of the complaints, arguing among other things that users voluntarily chose to bet, that the companies complied with applicable gambling regulations, and that the claims are preempted by state gambling laws. Courts have not yet issued final rulings on these motions in most jurisdictions.
Some cases have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings, which is common in litigation involving similar claims against the same defendants. Discovery is ongoing, which means plaintiffs are obtaining internal company documents, user data, and communications that may further support the allegations in the complaints.
Legal observers note that this litigation resembles earlier cases against tobacco companies, opioid manufacturers, and social media platforms, in which plaintiffs alleged that companies designed addictive products while concealing risks. Those cases took years to resolve but ultimately resulted in significant settlements and changes to industry practices.
Additional lawsuits are expected to be filed as awareness of the litigation grows and as people who developed gambling disorder come to understand that their experience may be connected to specific design choices rather than personal failings. The legal process is likely to take several years, involving extensive discovery, expert testimony from behavioral scientists and addiction specialists, and potentially trials in multiple jurisdictions.
Regulatory attention is also increasing. Several state legislatures have introduced bills that would impose stricter responsible gambling requirements on betting apps, and federal lawmakers have held hearings on the public health impact of mobile sports betting. The outcomes of these lawsuits may influence whether and how the industry is regulated going forward.
What happened to you was not a moral failure. It was not a lack of discipline or intelligence. The lawsuits allege it was the result of a platform built by teams of engineers and behavioral scientists, tested and refined using your data and the data of millions of others, and deployed with the knowledge that a percentage of users would lose control. You were not weak. You were targeted.
The shame you feel is real, but it is not deserved. The losses you suffered, the relationships damaged, the opportunities lost—those were not inevitable consequences of a character flaw. According to the court filings, they were foreseeable outcomes of a business model that required a subset of users to be unable to stop. You were that subset not because of who you are, but because of how the platform was designed to interact with human psychology. What happened to you happened to you on purpose.