DraftKings faces class action over AI targeting of problem gamblers

Daniel Vest lost thousands of dollars on DraftKings over several years. During one month of that stretch, he received at least 70 promotional emails, texts, and other communications from the platform urging him to keep betting. He filed a proposed class action in the US District Court in Boston, alleging that DraftKings used artificial intelligence to identify customers most likely to respond to gambling promotions — including customers already showing signs of problem gambling — and then sent those customers the kind of sustained outreach that characterized his own experience.

DraftKings has denied the allegation directly. The company's public statement is unambiguous: it does not use AI to target customers based on losses, and it does not use AI to target customers based on indicators of potential problem gambling. The case remains in its early stages, and none of Vest's allegations have been proven.

What makes the lawsuit consequential is not the individual claim but the mechanism it describes. Vest is not alleging that DraftKings offered him a bad product. He is alleging that the company's systems identified him as a particular kind of consumer — one whose losses made him more responsive to promotional incentives — and then deployed those promotions accordingly. Former DraftKings employees described those systems to the New York Times, whose investigation forms the factual spine of the complaint. DraftKings disputed the reporting.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell's office has acknowledged the lawsuit and noted that the allegations raise serious concerns. State Auditor Diana DiZoglio said the conduct described, if proven, would be unacceptable. Neither has filed separate action.

The legal question the case is developing is narrower than the public debate around it, and that distinction matters. Vest's complaint includes an allegation that DraftKings violated Massachusetts law by failing to disclose its use of AI to customers. That disclosure theory — not the harm theory — is where this case likely turns. Consumer protection statutes in Massachusetts impose affirmative obligations on companies that deploy automated decision systems affecting consumers in commerce. Whether the promotional targeting Vest describes falls within the scope of those obligations is not settled by the company's denial of the conduct; it is settled by whether a court finds the conduct occurred and whether, if it did, the statute required disclosure.

A June lawsuit from a Chicago-area customer raised similar allegations and is proceeding separately. Two parallel cases in two jurisdictions, both turning on the same underlying conduct, create the conditions under which a company's discovery obligations in one matter can inform litigation posture in the other.