Lawyers who secured a landmark ruling against Meta and Google are now going after sportsbooks, with a new lawsuit filed against FanDuel and DraftKings in Massachusetts.
Jennifer Hoekstra, a partner at law firm Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, worked on discovery and briefing for the California social media case.
She is now leading a personal injury claim against the sportsbooks, alleging that the companies specifically target vulnerable gamblers, such as late at night or after a big loss.
“They develop and personalize themselves to the individual user,” Hoekstra told ESPN. “When you log in, the algorithm knows who you are and what you’re interested in. It pops up, so it becomes more addictive for that person.“
Plaintiff Wagered Millions of Dollars
The plaintiff, Daniel Arroyo, a resident of Massachusetts, wagered $3 million at FanDuel between 2023 and 2025, according to the lawsuit, resulting in a net loss of $160,000. At DraftKings, he wagered nearly $150,000, losing around $20,000.
The complaint states that his gambling escalated to “an unmanageable addiction to the defendants’ sports betting platforms.”
As his gambling intensified, he left his job and is now in therapy for gambling addiction. Like in another lawsuit filed against the two companies this week, DraftKings and FanDuel assigned him VIP hosts.
In that case, the two plaintiffs lost over $2 million gambling on the platforms. In the new lawsuit, Hoekstra said she is focusing on physical harm, rather than economic injury.
Using Social Media Arguments
In the social media case, the main argument that won damages for the victim was that the product had been intentionally designed to be addictive.
Hoekstra is framing her argument against gambling companies in the same way.
“We’re claiming that there is an actual physical harm that is being done through the addiction,” Hoekstra said. “And that is the difference with ours, that there is a defective product that was defectively, intentionally designed to cause this harm.”
The lawsuit accuses DraftKings and FanDuel of making a business out of problem gamblers. It cites a Connecticut study that found 51% of sports betting revenue in the state comes from 2% of players, who are considered problem gamblers.
A previous lawsuit against DraftKings cited data showing 42% of the company’s total revenue comes from approximately 3.8% of its user base.
Will ‘Intentionally’ Addictive Argument Work Again?
In the case against Meta, the plaintiff was awarded $6 million in damages. Jurors found that Meta and Google intentionally built addictive social media platforms that harmed the 20-year old’s mental health.
However, in previous cases, courts have ruled that gambling companies have no duty of care toward compulsive gamblers. On Monday, a judge in Pennsylvania dismissed another lawsuit against DraftKings.
In the ruling, he wrote, “The Court finds that DraftKings has no duty of care to protect Plaintiffs from spending too much money or from developing or fueling a gambling addiction.”
Like the two new lawsuits filed against DraftKings and FanDuel, the complaint alleged that VIP hosts had encouraged gambling losses. However, the judge ruled that the VIP hosts had not exercised control over their betting or made betting decisions.
“Encouraging them to place bets is insufficient to create a fiduciary relationship,” wrote the judge.
A fiduciary relationship is a legal or ethical partnership of trust where one party (the fiduciary) acts on behalf of another. As the individuals place bets of their own free will, the VIP hosts and betting companies are not legally responsible.
DraftKings previously had to pay a $450,000 fine in Massachusetts, but that was for a clear violation of state laws in allowing credit card deposits. The latest lawsuits face a bigger challenge in establishing that the company and FanDuel are responsible for preventing a gambler’s losses.
