Chavdar Vasilev is a journalist covering the casino and sports betting market sectors for CasinoBeats. He joined CasinoBeats in May 2025 and reports on industry-shaping stories across the US and beyond, including legislative debates, market...
Read Full BioIllinois attorney Mark T. Lavery, who has described himself as a “bounty hunter” of gambling statutes, has filed a federal lawsuit against three gambling companies, invoking an 18th-century British law that is re-emerging as a modern legal weapon.
The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, names Third Planet Media (Props.com), Novig, and Dabble Sports.
The lawsuit alleges that the companies operated unlicensed sports-betting products disguised as sweepstakes or daily fantasy sports products, allowing residents of Illinois and several other states to place losing wagers.
Complaint Alleges Disguised Sports Wagering
In the complaint, Lavery alleges Props.com, Novig.us, and Dabble.com offer real-money sports betting under disguised mechanics, including:
- Sweepstakes entries functioning as paid wagers
- “No purchase necessary” coins behaving like stakes
- Picks and props settled on real-world sports outcomes
- Redeemable prizes equivalent to cash payouts
The complaint asserts the platforms do not hold gambling licenses in the relevant states. Also, players from Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts, Kentucky, and Texas suffered losses that qualify for statutory recovery.
Lavery seeks:
- Recovery of all identified gambling losses
- Treble damages under the Statute of Anne’s state-level counterparts
- Attorney fees
- A permanent injunction blocking the operators from serving users in the affected states
- Judicial declarations deeming the platforms illegal gambling enterprises
A 1710 Law Resurfaces in US Gambling Litigation
Lavery is relying on the Statute of Anne. This 1710 English law allows gamblers who have lost money illegally (or third parties acting on their behalf) to recover their losses from operators.
Although antiquated, the statute remains in effect within the gambling-loss-recovery laws of Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and several other states.
The law has regained relevance in recent years, as multiple lawsuits have cited it. One of the latest examples is an October complaint in South Carolina against Kalshi and Robinhood.
Earlier this year, D.C. Gambling Recovery LLC filed a lawsuit against BetMGM, Caesars Sportsbook, DraftKings, Fanatics Sportsbook, and FanDuel, citing the 1710 law. In response, Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser inserted a provision in next year’s budget that would make the law not apply to legalized sports gambling.
Lavery’s new filing applies the same legal theory but targets sweepstakes-backed and prop-style fantasy sports platforms.
The lawsuit also arrives as multiple states are cracking down on DFS-style pick ’em products. California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta declared pick ’em contests to be illegal sportsbook wagers earlier this year.
Meanwhile, states including Florida, New York, and Michigan have issued enforcement actions, including cease-and-desist letters and revised regulations, targeting prop-style fantasy formats.
Lavery’s Litigation Track Record
Lavery has built a reputation for aggressively using loss-recovery statutes against a wide range of gambling-related businesses. His previous lawsuits include:
- Underdog Sports (2023): Lavery claimed the company’s pick ’em fantasy contests constituted illegal sports betting. Portions of the case were dismissed after Underdog challenged the classification as a form of gambling.
- SidePrize LLC (2022): He alleged the fantasy-contest operator ran unlicensed sports wagering under the guise of skill games.
- Texas social poker lawsuits (2023): He filed multiple lawsuits against Texas social poker clubs and high-profile poker personalities, including Doug Polk, Brad Owen, Andrew Neeme, and Nate Silver.
- Professional bettor lawsuit (2023): He sued Erik Beimfohr, a well-known online sports bettor and DFS streamer, along with several alleged bookie agents for Underdog Sports.
His approach typically follows a clear template: identify a product that resembles wagering, argue that state gambling laws apply, and sue to recover losses on behalf of unnamed consumers who supposedly did not file in time.
There is no public record of Lavery winning any of these lawsuits, but that has not deterred him from continuing to file new loss-recovery actions.
