The US sports betting industry is no stranger to scrutiny, but predatory sports betting marketing practices have now taken center stage in a high-stakes legal battle.
Article By Stephen Crystal – Founder & CEO, SCCG – SCHEDULE A MEETING
On April 3, 2025, the City of Baltimore filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against online sportsbook giants FanDuel and DraftKings, accusing them of violating the city’s Consumer Protection Ordinance. This case doesn’t just challenge the behavior of two dominant operators—it forces the entire industry to take a hard look at how marketing, data, and user engagement intersect with player vulnerability.
As someone who has spent over 30 years navigating the business, legal, and operational sides of gaming, I believe this case could mark a turning point for how we define and regulate ethical engagement.
Predatory Sports Betting Marketing Practices Under the Microscope
Baltimore’s lawsuit outlines a series of allegations that paint a disturbing picture. Among them: the claim that FanDuel and DraftKings design their platforms to encourage compulsive gambling behaviors through bonus structures, limited-time offers, and persistent messaging. These aren’t just standard promotions—according to the complaint, they are designed to get users betting frequently and deeply within their first week of signup.
Take the example of the $150 in bonus bets: Baltimore alleges that users must bet at least six times in seven days to unlock the full reward. From a product perspective, this is positioned as an incentive—but from a behavioral psychology standpoint, it mimics the classic “hook” used in other addictive digital experiences. The city argues that these promotions aren’t harmless. They are triggers that accelerate user dependency before any natural check-in process can occur.
Further, the lawsuit claims that certain bonus wagers are locked into the system, meaning the bettor cannot cash out once a bet is placed—forcing a reinvestment of any potential gains into more bets. The city believes these mechanisms aren’t just aggressive—they’re deceptive.
The Data Dilemma: Profiling the Most Vulnerable
Perhaps the most provocative claim in the suit is this: that these sportsbooks collect and leverage up to 186 data points per user, including behavioral indicators tied to betting frequency, chasing losses, and time spent on the platform. This data, Baltimore argues, isn’t just used for product optimization—it’s used to identify the most profitable (often losing) customers and target them with relentless pings, VIP offers, and check-ins from dedicated hosts.
These targeted strategies, the city says, mirror known markers of gambling addiction. In short, the very metrics used to gauge customer lifetime value may also flag a user’s susceptibility to gambling harm—and rather than mitigate that risk, the platforms are accused of monetizing it.
Interestingly, the lawsuit notes that Flutter Entertainment—the parent company of FanDuel—already employs far stricter safeguards in the U.K. market. These include financial vulnerability checks, restrictions on VIP programs, and additional protections for bettors under 25. Baltimore’s lawyers argue that if these standards exist overseas, there’s no reason they shouldn’t be adopted in the U.S., especially as American operators scale rapidly in states like Maryland.
A Lawsuit That May Shape Policy, Not Just Penalties
This isn’t just another class-action from disgruntled users. This is the first legal challenge brought by a U.S. city against online sportsbooks since the repeal of PASPA in 2018, and it comes from a jurisdiction with no direct revenue from sports betting. Mayor Brandon Scott has positioned the suit not just as a legal tool, but as a public policy statement: that urban centers bear the cost of addiction, family disruption, and strain on public health services.
Maryland’s own data supports the urgency. According to the University of Maryland’s Center of Excellence on Problem Gambling, over 20% of online sports bettors in the state show signs of disordered gambling—almost double the rate of traditional bettors. That translates to hundreds of thousands of residents, many of whom are young men, increasingly vulnerable to the frictionless accessibility of mobile wagering.
Where the Industry Goes From Here
Whether this case succeeds in court or not, the reputational impact is already rippling. The narrative that major operators are exploiting behavioral data to prey on the vulnerable has traction—and regulators, advocacy groups, and even other states are likely watching closely.
If the goal is long-term industry health, it’s time to shift from reactive compliance to proactive transparency. Operators already have the tools to identify at-risk players—why not use them to intervene before harm escalates? Why not mirror global best practices in markets where responsible gaming is more deeply embedded in the business model?
As the conversation continues to evolve, one thing is clear: predatory sports betting marketing practices are no longer a fringe concern—they’re front and center. And how we respond will define the next era of legal gaming in America.