- A federal suit filed Sept. 30 says a DraftKings machine-learning model steered promotions toward bettors likely to lose more.
- The complaint pleads three common-law counts, with a Chapter 93A consumer-protection claim to follow after 30 days absent a settlement tender.
- The suit cites a Massachusetts Gaming Commission rule that bars promoting wagers through AI systems expected to make a platform more addictive.
- DraftKings denies aiming AI at customers because of their losses or signs of problem gaming.
BOSTON – Daniel Vest, a West Virginia bettor, sued DraftKings in Boston federal court on Sept. 30 on behalf of a proposed class of customers he says the sportsbook singled out for promotions with a machine-learning model. The proposed class has no state limit. The DraftKings class action complaint says the company broke the responsible-play promise in its own privacy notices.
The Complaint Alleges A Model Scored Customers
The complaint builds on a Sept. 19 New York Times investigation and quotes it throughout. It says DraftKings, a licensed operator in the U.S. legal sports betting market, developed a machine-learning model in 2023 to rate customers on their habits. The more a customer was expected to lose for each promotion, the higher the rating.
Customers rated below average were labeled “inelastic” and slated for fewer offers, the complaint says. It alleges on information and belief that customers tagged “elastic” received a heavier flow of messages and offers “intended to keep them gambling” and to head off their departure.
A second model would have attached “risk scores” to customers. The complaint quotes the Times that DraftKings “sidelined it,” an account the newspaper attributed to two former employees.
The complaint’s money figures come from Citizens Bank by way of the Times. They show roughly $3 billion of promotional spending in 2025 set against gross revenue of about $8.7 billion. Promotions were about a third of revenue. The complaint also relays the newspaper’s account of an executive’s remarks to investors crediting analytics with a 13% improvement in 2025 margins on promotion-linked sports bets.
The damages theory is narrower than those totals. Vest asks for the additional sums class members bet or lost once model-driven messages reached them. The prayer for relief adds a disgorgement demand covering what DraftKings collected through the model, along with an injunction against model-driven targeting of users with added messages and offers.
Vest’s own account covers the DraftKings Sportsbook and the company’s online casino. The complaint says he “has gambled thousands of dollars” with the company each year for a number of years. It counts at least about 70 messages to him, by email, text and app notification, in the roughly 30 days before Sept. 25. Before September, it adds, offers followed gaps of only a few days in his betting.
Three Common-Law Counts, One Regulation
Count I alleges breach of contract, Count II breach of implied contract and Count III money had and received. Each draws on the “Responsible Play” passage of DraftKings’ sportsbook and casino privacy notices, in which the company says it may review customer information for signs of irresponsible play and reach out with resources. The complaint says DraftKings put the data to “the exact opposite purpose.”
No count rests on the regulation. Paragraph 9 calls DraftKings’ conduct “contrary to” Massachusetts law and cites 205 CMR 257.02, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission’s data-use rule for licensed Massachusetts sports betting operators. Paragraph 84, inside Count III, alleges the conduct violates the rule as well.
Subsection (3)(e) bars an operator from using patron data to promote wagers or offers based on any algorithm, “machine learning, artificial intelligence, or similar system” that is “known or reasonably expected” by the operator or one of its vendors “to make the gaming platform more addictive.” Subsection (3)(a) applies the same bar to offers based on “a period of dormancy or non-use” of a betting platform. The complaint describes offers after a few idle days but does not cite that paragraph.
A Class Without State Or Product Limits
The class definition takes in every customer DraftKings deemed “elastic” or sent targeted messages or promotions on the model’s output, within the statute of limitations. It sets no limit by state or product. Citing the Times for DraftKings’ count of 11 million customers, the complaint concedes not all are class members and puts the likely total anywhere from thousands to millions.
Federal jurisdiction rests on 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2), with Vest’s West Virginia citizenship supplying diversity and the complaint pleading more than $5 million in controversy. Block & Leviton LLP of Boston and Lynch Carpenter LLP of Pittsburgh signed the complaint for Vest and the proposed class. The docket lists the case as No. 1:26-cv-14462 before U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy.
DraftKings And Regulators Respond
DraftKings spokesperson Park Winslow told WBUR in a statement, “DraftKings does not use AI to target customers based on losses, nor do we use AI to target customers based on indicators of potential problem gaming.” Winslow added, “We intend to vigorously defend any potential lawsuits on the matter.”
WBUR also reported that Commission Chair Jordan Maynard answered the Times report with a pledge to examine AI use by DraftKings and other sportsbooks and to “engage” with the company on the allegations. The commission declined to discuss the lawsuit, with a spokesperson citing its practice on pending litigation.
Molly McGlynn, a spokesperson for Attorney General Andrea Campbell, said the allegations “raise serious concerns about the potential use of technology to target or exploit consumers, particularly those who may be vulnerable to problem gambling or gambling addiction,” WBUR reported.
Chapter 93A Claim Waits 30 Days
A footnote on the complaint’s third page says Vest is not pressing a claim under Chapter 93A, the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, “at this time,” and calls the three pleaded counts “non-statutory.” It says a Section 9 notice was going to DraftKings alongside the filing.
The footnote gives DraftKings 30 days to make “an acceptable tender of settlement.” Otherwise Vest plans a motion to add a Chapter 93A claim and a request for additional damages. If the notice went out with the Sept. 30 filing, that window closes about Oct. 30.
