Baltimore sues DraftKings, FanDuel for allegedly exploiting problem gamblers
Nearly seven years since the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for state-by-state legalized sports wagering, it's still the Wild West. And with the federal government doing little if anything to regulate the sports-betting industry, it's up to litigation to apply guardrails to our current BET! BET! BET! reality.
The latest lawsuit was filed not by an individual but a city full of them. Baltimore has sued Draftkings and FanDuel for allegedly exploiting problem gamblers.
'These companies are engaging in shady practices, and the people of our city are literally paying the price,' Baltimore mayor Brandon Scott said in a press release, via ESPN.com. 'DraftKings and FanDuel have specifically targeted our most vulnerable residents -- including those struggling with gambling disorders -- and have caused significant harm as a result. This lawsuit is a critical step to hold them accountable and protect all Baltimoreans.'
The lawsuit alleges that the companies hope to lure bettors to bet, until they're addicted to betting. Neither company provided comment to ESPN.com in response to the lawsuit.
'Defendants are not interested in people merely dipping their toes in the water,' the complaint alleges. 'They want bettors to bet, in significant amounts, over and over. Some get hooked, and that's the point.'
Attorney Adam Levitt, who represents Baltimore in the lawsuit, told ESPN.com that this is the first lawsuit brought by a public body against online sportsbooks since the Supreme Court allowed nationwide legalized sports betting in May 2018. And Levitt explained that, unlike individuals who agree to arbitration clauses that limit their legal options, public entities aren't bound by efforts to force lawsuits into forums that will be far more favorable to the companies involved.
Baltimore demands both statutory penalties and a court order forcing the sportsbooks to end practices that allegedly create and/or cater to problem gamblers.
The industry needs fair and proper protections for consumers, because the natural incentive to develop and maintain a robust array of gamblers who consistently lose is strong. (Obviously, if they consistently win, they're at risk of getting banned.)
Sports betting isn't the stock market. Investors can make a lot of money, over time. Bettors will lose, over time. That's why it's so attractive to be the house.
This doesn't mean people should never bet. But when they do, they should always bet responsibly. And they should only spend money they're prepared to lose. Because, over time, they will.
Treat the money like entertainment dollars. Expect to lose it. If you don't lose, treat the winnings like the found money it is.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
31 minutes ago
- New York Times
Supreme Court Sides With Teenager in School Disability Discrimination Case
The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a teenage girl with epilepsy and her parents who had sued a Minnesota school district, claiming that her school had failed to provide reasonable accommodations, which made it difficult for her to receive instruction. The case hinged on what standard of proof was required to show discrimination by public schools in education-related disability lawsuits. In a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the court held that the student and her family needed to show only that the school system had acted with 'deliberate indifference' to her educational needs when they sued. That is the same standard that applies when people sue other institutions for discrimination based on disability. The school district argued that a higher standard — a stringent requirement that the institution had acted with 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' — should apply. Had the district prevailed, the new standard might have applied broadly to all kinds disability rights claims filed under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. That argument had unnerved some disability rights groups, which had cautioned that a ruling for the school could make it much harder for Americans with disabilities to successfully bring court challenges. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Newsweek
35 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Unanimously Greenlights Lawsuit Over FBI's Botched Raid
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that an Atlanta family whose home was mistakenly raided by the FBI in 2017 can move forward with their lawsuit, granting them a new day in court. The decision stems from a pre-dawn incident in which an FBI SWAT team broke down the family's front door, deployed a flashbang grenade, and pointed weapons at Trina Martin, her then-boyfriend Toi Cliatt, and her 7-year-old son—only to realize moments later they had entered the wrong house. Although the agents quickly apologized and relocated to the correct address—blaming a GPS error for the mistake—Martin and Cliatt were left with emotional trauma and a damaged home. Their lawsuit against the federal government, alleging assault, false arrest, and other claims, was initially dismissed by lower courts. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the agents were protected under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which prioritizes federal law over state law. But Martin's legal team, backed by advocacy groups across the political spectrum, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that such protections should not shield federal agents from accountability in clear cases of harm. The Court's decision reverses the lower rulings and revives a debate on law enforcement oversight and federal immunity. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court sends Atlanta family's lawsuit against FBI back to lower court for more review
Supreme Court sends Atlanta family's lawsuit against FBI back to lower court for more review Show Caption Hide Caption Can FBI be sued if agents raid wrong house? Supreme Court to weigh in. Trina Martin, son Gabe Watson and partner Toi Cliatt seek compensation after their house was mistakenly raided by the FBI. WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court sent a case involving an Atlanta family seeking to sue the FBI for raiding their house back to a lower court for more consideration, but left unresolved the broader question of how much protection from lawsuits the courts should give law enforcement officers mistakes on the job. Trina Martin, her son Gabe and her partner Toi Cliatt awoke one morning in October 2017 to what she called the 'monstrous noise' of a half-dozen FBI agents barging into their home with guns drawn. But the Special Weapons and Tactics team was at the wrong home, 436 feet from a similar beige, split-level house where a suspected gang member lived. Federal courts dismissed the family's lawsuit for compensation over the mistake by ruling courts shouldn't second-guess law enforcement officers. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissal of the case on June 12. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court that there are several exceptions to whether law enforcement officers can be sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the appeals court should review them again. Martin, her son who was 7 years old at the time of the raid, and Cliatt each feared they could be killed when the SWAT team burst noisily into their house. The ordeal lasted about five minutes before the FBI agents realized their mistake and headed out to the correct house. The FBI agents described their meticulous planning to search the house by locating it with GPS during daylight, taking pictures and drawing up a tactical plan. Congress changed the Federal Tort Claims Act in 1974 to allow lawsuits against law enforcement after two wrong-house raids the year before. But the government argued that judges shouldn't second-guess agents doing their jobs. A District Court and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case by finding the agents were immune.
