You told yourself it was just entertainment. A way to make the games more interesting. Maybe you won a little at first, felt that rush, and thought you had found something that understood sports the way you did. Then the losses started. You chased them, certain the next bet would turn things around. Your savings disappeared. You borrowed money you could not pay back. You lied to your spouse, your kids, your closest friends. You felt shame so deep you could not name it out loud. And through all of it, the app was right there, with a notification, a bonus offer, a same-game parlay that felt like it was built just for you.
When you finally admitted you had a problem, when you sat across from a counselor or a doctor and heard the words gambling disorder, you probably thought this was your fault. That you lacked discipline. That you were weak. That something inside you was broken in a way that made you vulnerable to this when other people could bet casually and walk away. You might have wondered if you had some genetic predisposition, some addictive personality that was always waiting for the right trigger.
But what if the spiral you experienced was not a personal failing? What if the platform you were using was designed, with precision and intention, to create exactly the behavior you could not control? What if there were researchers, data scientists, and behavioral psychologists who understood the mechanisms of addiction and built systems to exploit them? The lawsuits now being filed against DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM allege exactly that. And the scientific literature on gambling disorder, app-based behavioral design, and the neuroscience of addiction tells a story that has nothing to do with your character and everything to do with the environment those platforms created.
What Happened
Gambling disorder is a recognized psychiatric condition, classified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders since 2013. It is not about losing money occasionally or enjoying a trip to a casino. It is a pattern of behavior where gambling becomes compulsive, where you cannot stop even when you desperately want to, even when the consequences are devastating. People with gambling disorder experience intense cravings. They chase losses, betting more to try to win back what they lost. They lie about how much they are gambling. They jeopardize relationships, jobs, and financial stability. Many experience severe depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation.
What distinguishes app-based sports betting from traditional gambling is the speed, the accessibility, and the constant presence. You are not driving to a casino or a racetrack. You are not limited by business hours or geographic location. The app is on your phone, always. You can place a bet in seconds, from your couch, your office, your car. You can bet on live games as they unfold, with odds that update moment by moment. You can receive notifications that pull you back in when you are trying to step away. The friction that once existed, the natural pauses that allowed people to reconsider, has been engineered out of the experience.
The financial devastation that follows is not abstract. People lose their savings, their retirement accounts, their homes. They max out credit cards, take out loans, and borrow from family members under false pretenses. The average debt reported by people seeking treatment for gambling disorder related to sports betting apps ranges from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Relationships collapse under the weight of lies and broken trust. Many people describe feeling like they were living a double life, hiding the extent of their gambling from everyone they loved.
The Connection
Gambling disorder is driven by changes in the brain that closely resemble those seen in substance use disorders. Research published in neuropsychopharmacology journals over the past two decades has shown that gambling activates the same reward pathways as drugs like cocaine and methamphetamine. The neurotransmitter dopamine, which plays a central role in motivation and pleasure, surges in response to wins and near-misses. Over time, the brain adapts, requiring more frequent or intense gambling to achieve the same feeling. This is tolerance, the same mechanism seen in chemical addiction.
A 2001 study published in Nature Neuroscience by researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital used PET scans to measure dopamine release in people playing video games designed to simulate gambling. They found that near-misses, outcomes where the gambler almost won, produced dopamine responses nearly identical to actual wins. This is critical because near-misses do not provide any financial reward, yet the brain treats them as if they do. The result is that losses are reframed as almost-wins, which fuels continued play.
Sports betting apps are built on these principles. They are designed to maximize engagement, which in the language of behavioral psychology means maximizing the frequency and duration of betting. Features like live in-game betting allow users to place wagers on individual plays, at-bats, or possessions, creating hundreds of opportunities to bet during a single game. Each bet resolves quickly, delivering that dopamine hit or that near-miss within seconds. The speed of play is a known risk factor for gambling disorder. Research published in the journal Addiction in 2015 found that faster gambling formats, such as electronic gaming machines and online platforms, are associated with higher rates of problem gambling compared to slower formats like lottery tickets.
Push notifications are another mechanism. A 2019 study in the Journal of Behavioral Addictions examined the impact of gambling app notifications on user behavior. Researchers found that notifications significantly increased the frequency of gambling sessions and the total amount wagered. Notifications create a sense of urgency and opportunity, pulling users back into the app even when they had decided to stop. The lawsuits allege that DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM used notifications strategically, timed to moments when users were likely to be watching sports or when promotional offers were available.
The platforms also employ variable ratio reinforcement schedules, a concept from operant conditioning research. This is the same schedule that makes slot machines so addictive. Wins are unpredictable, occurring at irregular intervals, which creates a compulsion to keep playing because the next bet might be the one that pays off. B.F. Skinner demonstrated in the 1950s that variable ratio schedules produce the highest rates of persistent behavior, behavior that is highly resistant to extinction. Sports betting apps are, in essence, variable ratio reinforcement machines that you carry in your pocket.
Bonuses and promotions add another layer. Free bets, deposit matches, and risk-free wagers are framed as gifts, but they function as behavioral hooks. They lower the perceived risk of betting, encouraging users to wager more than they otherwise would. A 2020 study published in the International Gambling Studies journal found that promotional offers were associated with increased gambling expenditure and higher rates of problem gambling symptoms. The lawsuits allege that these platforms deployed bonuses in patterns designed to re-engage users who had reduced their activity, a practice the complaints describe as predatory.
What The Lawsuits Allege They Knew
The lawsuits filed against DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM allege that these companies were aware of the addictive potential of their platforms and made deliberate design choices to exploit it. According to complaints filed in multiple jurisdictions beginning in 2023, the companies employed behavioral scientists, data analysts, and user experience designers whose work focused on maximizing user engagement, a term the lawsuits argue is a euphemism for increasing the frequency and volume of betting.
Court filings cite internal documents and communications that allegedly show the companies tracked metrics such as session length, bet frequency, and re-engagement rates. The complaints allege that these metrics were used to refine app features, notification timing, and promotional strategies with the goal of increasing what the industry calls lifetime value, the total amount a user is expected to wager over the course of their relationship with the platform. The lawsuits claim that the companies knew users who exhibited high-frequency betting patterns were at risk for gambling disorder, but prioritized revenue growth over implementing meaningful safeguards.
One complaint references a 2021 presentation allegedly created by a data science team at one of the defendant companies, which the lawsuit claims outlined strategies for identifying users who were reducing their activity and re-engaging them with targeted promotions. The presentation, according to the complaint, described these users as at-risk for churn, meaning they were at risk of stopping their use of the app. The lawsuit alleges that no equivalent effort was made to identify users at risk for gambling disorder, despite the fact that the behavioral patterns are similar: both involve changes in betting frequency and session duration.
The complaints also point to public statements made by executives and investors. In earnings calls and investor presentations between 2019 and 2022, company leaders allegedly emphasized the importance of increasing user engagement and reducing churn. The lawsuits argue that these priorities were incompatible with responsible gambling, because the users most likely to churn were often those who were trying to control or stop their gambling, while the users with the highest engagement were frequently those exhibiting signs of disorder.
According to documents referenced in the litigation, the companies were aware of research showing the risks of app-based gambling. A 2018 report by the UK Gambling Commission, which is cited in several complaints, found that online gambling was associated with higher rates of problem gambling than land-based gambling, and that in-play betting and mobile access were particular risk factors. The lawsuits allege that despite this public research, the companies expanded their live in-game betting features and increased the frequency of mobile notifications.
The complaints further allege that the companies conducted their own internal research on user behavior but did not disclose findings that would have raised public concern. One lawsuit claims that a defendant company analyzed the betting patterns of users who self-excluded from the platform, a group known to have high rates of gambling disorder, and found that these users had previously exhibited specific behaviors such as frequent late-night betting, rapid repeat wagers, and high volumes of in-game bets. The lawsuit alleges that the company did not use this information to create early-warning systems or interventions, but instead continued to design features that encouraged exactly those behaviors in the broader user base.
What The Lawsuits Say About Concealment
The litigation alleges that DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM concealed the addictive nature of their platforms through a combination of marketing messages, lobbying efforts, and inadequate disclosures. According to the complaints, the companies publicly emphasized responsible gambling initiatives while privately designing systems to maximize engagement among users who were most vulnerable.
Court filings describe the responsible gambling features offered by these platforms, such as deposit limits, time limits, and self-exclusion options, and allege that these features were difficult to find, cumbersome to use, and ineffective at preventing harm. One complaint claims that a user had to navigate through multiple screens and menus to set a deposit limit, while promotional offers and betting opportunities were presented prominently on the home screen. The lawsuit argues that this design choice reflects the companies' true priorities.
The lawsuits also allege that the companies engaged in regulatory lobbying to shape the legal landscape in ways that favored rapid expansion over consumer protection. Complaints cite legislative efforts in states that legalized sports betting between 2018 and 2023, alleging that industry representatives advocated for minimal restrictions on advertising, app features, and promotional offers. The litigation claims that the companies funded trade associations and coalitions that opposed measures such as mandatory cooling-off periods, limits on in-game betting, and restrictions on push notifications.
Several complaints reference advertising campaigns that the lawsuits allege were misleading. Ads featuring celebrities and athletes portrayed sports betting as a casual, social activity, with no mention of the risk of addiction. The lawsuits claim that the companies targeted young men, a demographic known to have higher rates of problem gambling, with ads that ran during sporting events and on social media platforms. According to the complaints, internal marketing documents allegedly referred to this demographic as high-value users, a term the lawsuits interpret as meaning users who were likely to bet frequently and in large amounts.
The litigation further alleges that the companies used arbitration clauses and non-disclosure agreements to prevent information about gambling-related harm from becoming public. Complaints claim that users who experienced financial devastation or other harm and sought to resolve disputes with the companies were required to sign agreements that prohibited them from discussing the terms of any settlement or the facts of their case. The lawsuits argue that this practice concealed the true scope of the problem and prevented other users from learning about the risks.
Why Your Doctor May Not Have Told You
Gambling disorder is underdiagnosed and undertreated, in part because many healthcare providers do not screen for it and are not trained to recognize it. Unlike substance use disorders, which may present with physical symptoms, gambling disorder is behavioral. Patients do not come in with withdrawal symptoms or visible signs of intoxication. They come in with anxiety, depression, insomnia, and stress-related illnesses. Unless a provider asks specifically about gambling, the underlying issue may never be identified.
Medical and nursing school curricula typically include little to no education on gambling disorder. A 2017 survey published in the Journal of Gambling Studies found that fewer than 15 percent of medical schools in the United States included any content on problem gambling in their training programs. This means that most doctors simply do not think to ask about it, even when patients present with financial stress, relationship problems, or suicidal ideation, all of which are common in people with gambling disorder.
The lawsuits allege that the sports betting industry has not done enough to educate healthcare providers about the risks of app-based gambling. According to the complaints, the companies funded public awareness campaigns that emphasized personal responsibility and voluntary self-exclusion, but did not provide resources or training for doctors, therapists, or counselors. The litigation claims that this was a deliberate choice, part of a broader strategy to frame gambling disorder as an individual problem rather than a product design issue.
There is also a stigma around gambling disorder that prevents people from disclosing it. Many patients feel ashamed and fear judgment. They may not tell their doctor about their gambling even when asked directly. And because the companies designed their platforms to be private and convenient, much of the gambling happens invisibly. There is no bartender to cut you off, no friend to notice you are spending too much time at the casino. The app does not judge, does not intervene, and does not stop you.
The lawsuits argue that the companies could have implemented systems to detect problem gambling behavior and intervene, such as mandatory breaks after a certain amount of time or money spent, automatic enrollment in cooling-off periods for users exhibiting high-risk patterns, or direct outreach to users showing signs of disorder. The complaints allege that the companies had the data and the technology to do this, but chose not to because it would have reduced engagement and revenue.
Who Is Affected
If you used DraftKings, FanDuel, or BetMGM and developed a pattern of gambling that you could not control, you may be affected. This includes people who found themselves betting more often than they intended, who chased losses, who lied about their gambling, or who experienced financial or relationship harm as a result. You do not need to have been formally diagnosed with gambling disorder to have experienced harm.
The timeline matters. These platforms expanded rapidly following the Supreme Court decision in 2018 that allowed states to legalize sports betting. If you began using these apps after 2018 and experienced a rapid escalation in your gambling behavior, the lawsuits allege that this escalation was not accidental. The complaints describe the period from 2018 to the present as a time when the companies were aggressively growing their user bases and maximizing engagement, often with little regard for the risk of harm.
People who experienced financial devastation are particularly affected. This includes those who depleted savings, took on significant debt, borrowed money they could not repay, or faced bankruptcy or foreclosure as a result of their gambling. The lawsuits describe these outcomes as foreseeable consequences of the platforms' design, not as isolated cases of individual excess.
If your relationships suffered, if you lost the trust of your spouse or your family, if you found yourself lying about where money was going or why you were spending so much time on your phone, you are affected. The complaints allege that the companies knew these harms were occurring and that they were directly linked to the design features and promotional strategies the platforms employed.
You do not need to have used all three platforms. Many people used only one. What matters is the pattern of behavior and the harm that resulted. If you felt like you could not stop, like the app had some kind of hold on you, the lawsuits argue that this was not a coincidence and not your fault.
Where Things Stand
As of 2024, multiple lawsuits have been filed against DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM in state and federal courts. These cases are in various stages of litigation. Some have been consolidated into multidistrict litigation for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Others are proceeding individually in state courts. The legal theories vary but generally include claims of negligence, fraud, unfair business practices, and violations of consumer protection statutes.
Discovery is ongoing in many of these cases, which means that plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking internal documents, communications, and data from the companies. The complaints suggest that these documents will reveal the extent to which the companies understood the addictive potential of their platforms and made deliberate choices to prioritize engagement over safety. The companies have denied the allegations and have moved to dismiss some of the cases, arguing that users are responsible for their own gambling behavior and that the platforms provide adequate tools for responsible gambling.
No settlements or verdicts have been reached as of the time of this writing, but the litigation is expected to continue for several years. The timeline for resolution in cases like these is typically long, involving extensive discovery, motion practice, and potentially trials. However, the fact that cases are being filed and are surviving initial dismissal motions suggests that courts are taking the allegations seriously.
Additional cases are expected to be filed as more people come forward and as awareness of the litigation grows. Attorneys representing plaintiffs have indicated that they are investigating hundreds of potential claims and that the number of affected individuals is likely in the thousands or tens of thousands. The lawsuits are not limited to one geographic area; they have been filed in states across the country where sports betting is legal.
There is also increasing attention from regulators and lawmakers. Several states have opened investigations into the marketing and design practices of sports betting companies. Congressional hearings have been held to examine the rise of gambling disorder in the wake of legalized sports betting. While regulatory action is separate from the civil litigation, the lawsuits allege that the companies have lobbied against stronger regulations and have resisted calls for mandatory safeguards.
The litigation represents a significant moment in the broader conversation about technology, addiction, and corporate responsibility. The legal arguments being made in these cases draw on decades of research in neuroscience, behavioral psychology, and public health. They challenge the idea that addiction is purely a matter of individual choice and assert that companies have a duty not to design products that exploit known vulnerabilities in the human brain.
For people who have been harmed, the lawsuits offer a potential path to accountability. They assert that what happened was not random, not a matter of bad luck or weak character, but the result of deliberate design choices made by companies that knew the risks and chose profit over safety. Whether these claims will be proven in court remains to be seen, but the fact that they are being litigated means that the companies will have to answer for their practices in a public forum.
The legal process is slow and uncertain, but it is also thorough. Discovery will bring internal documents to light. Depositions will put company executives and designers on the record. Expert witnesses will testify about the science of addiction and the ethics of product design. And ultimately, juries or judges will decide whether the companies breached a duty of care to their users.
Conclusion
What happened to you was not a personal failing. The shame you carry, the belief that you should have been stronger or smarter or more disciplined, is misplaced. The platforms you used were designed by people who understood how the brain responds to risk and reward, who knew how to create patterns of behavior that are extraordinarily difficult to break, and who, the lawsuits allege, made a business decision to prioritize growth and engagement over the well-being of their users.
You were not weak. You were targeted. The research is clear. The mechanisms are documented. The timeline, as laid out in the litigation, shows that the companies knew what they were building and what the consequences would be. The devastation you experienced, the money you lost, the relationships that fractured, the sense that you were living a life you did not recognize, these were foreseeable outcomes of a system designed to keep you betting. The lawsuits allege that the companies had the data, the technology, and the responsibility to do something different, and they chose not to. What happened to you was not luck. It was a documented business decision.