Louisiana Class-Action Suit Alleges DraftKings and FanDuel Deploy AI to Target and Retain Problem Gamblers

A proposed class-action lawsuit filed in Louisiana accuses DraftKings and FanDuel of using AI-backed personalization on their mobile sports betting apps to target users with gambling disorders. The complaint, lodged on October 22 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, claims the operators bypass self-exclusion and responsible gaming tools in violation of the state’s Sports Wagering Act. It also names Bally’s Baton Rouge and Amelia Belle as defendants for anchoring the sportsbooks’ market access.

The suit seeks recovery of all plaintiff deposits and demands a jury trial on whether the operators violated state consumer protection laws. Initial plaintiffs are three Louisiana residents: Adrian Payton, Toi Smith, and Yolanda Perkins.

Lawsuit Claims Apps Are Defective

The complaint alleges that DraftKings and FanDuel apps contain an unreasonably dangerous defect under the Louisiana Products Liability Act due to inadequate warnings. It states the platforms lack conspicuous, medically accurate warnings detailing the addictive potential of the interfaces. The operators knew of this addictiveness through their own data tracking yet failed to take reasonable steps to warn users.

“Harrowing accounts proliferate in which people describe feeling targeted and exploited by FanDuel and DraftKings, even after they tell representatives from the companies that they fear they are losing control and cannot, for example, pay their mortgage,” the lawsuit alleges.

It further alleges that “[Defendants] use creative, algorithmically-crafted inducements to keep people in the game, even when it is clear the game is causing those users serious harm. FanDuel and DraftKings hook users and then use troves of user data to identify, target, and exploit the most vulnerable among them, specifically seeking those who appear to have gambling disorders.”

Sportsbooks’ Terms and Conditions

Neither DraftKings nor FanDuel has filed a response. Observers expect the operators to petition for dismissal, arguing state law imposes no statutory obligation to police consumers’ gambling activity. Both platforms maintain extensive terms of service that require users to acknowledge risks and include broad indemnification language.

For instance, DraftKings’ user agreement mandates that customers “indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless DraftKings … from and against any and all third party claims, liabilities, losses, damages, injuries, demands, actions, causes of action, suits,” and associated legal costs. As reported by Casino.org News, the case centers on whether the apps qualify as defective products under state law.

Reporting: Casino.org News

Generated by SCCG’s automated editorial system from published source reporting. SCCG Management holds editorial responsibility.