The American legal landscape is witnessing a surge in lawsuits against sports betting companies, claiming that their applications are designed to exploit individuals with gambling disorders.
According to Whitney Ray Di Bona, an attorney and consumer safety advocate at Drugwatch, the journey to substantiate these claims and hold these companies accountable may take years. However, approximately 80 lawsuits at the state level, particularly following a significant ruling in New Mexico against Meta, provide a potential framework for these cases.
Di Bona expresses optimism that the lawsuits initiated by Drugwatch, part of The Wilson Firm LLP, could contribute to a broader class action movement. While litigation against gambling companies is not a new phenomenon, the current wave of lawsuits is distinctive due to their focus on product liability.
“What makes these cases particularly intriguing is their basis in product liability, arguing that these apps are products designed with addictive features,” Di Bona noted. “This trend aligns with the ongoing wave of lawsuits related to social media harms and other digital platforms.”
Recent rulings may pave the way for further legal actions, especially following a jury's decision in March that found Meta liable for misleading customers about the safety of its platforms.
Di Bona elaborated, “The lawsuits assert that these applications are intentionally crafted with addictive elements that ensnare users, leading to emotional distress, anxiety, depression, and significant financial losses.”
Drugwatch's legal partners are actively participating in these lawsuits, alongside public health organizations like the Public Health Advocacy Institute, which previously focused on tobacco-related litigation.
Noteworthy cases currently in litigation include:
- Sage & Thompson v. FanDuel, DraftKings, NFL, Genius Sports (Pennsylvania state court): Plaintiffs Christopher Sage and Terry Thompson allege that DraftKings and FanDuel, using NFL data from Genius Sports, provided a “known addictive product,” particularly in-game micro-betting, claiming losses of $2 million.
- Daniel Arroyo vs. DraftKings, FanDuel (Massachusetts Superior Court): Filed shortly after the Meta ruling, Arroyo claims to have lost approximately $160,000 on FanDuel and $20,000 on DraftKings, attributing his gambling addiction to the apps' targeted notifications and advertisements that encouraged further betting.
Arroyo argues that sportsbooks exploit bettors' behaviors, particularly during vulnerable moments, and that the defendants are fully aware of users' betting patterns, pushing them to gamble more through personalized incentives and notifications.
While some previous lawsuits based on general negligence have been dismissed due to a lack of duty of care, Di Bona believes that focusing on app design could yield different outcomes. “These are emerging cases, representing a new wave of litigation,” she concluded.