A ten-week investigation by ProPublica reporter Jake Pearson found that the responsible gaming safeguards embedded in the DraftKings sports betting app were frequently overpowered by the platform’s product design and promotional incentives. Bankrolled by the news organization, Pearson mimicked the betting patterns of a problem gambler to test the efficacy of consumer protections touted by major online sportsbooks. The findings highlight a growing tension between industry claims of self-regulation and the operational reality of apps designed to maximize user engagement and spending.
The investigation comes as online sports betting has surged in the United States since the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision allowing states to legalize the practice. Companies like DraftKings and FanDuel have emphasized 'responsible gaming' features as central to their consumer protection strategies. However, Pearson’s experience suggests these tools may be insufficient for users exhibiting addictive behaviors, prompting calls from policymakers for stricter regulatory frameworks.
What the Right Is Saying
Defenders of the current industry model emphasize personal responsibility and the utility of existing tools. From this perspective, the availability of budget trackers, time reminders, and 'cool off' periods demonstrates that companies are providing users with the means to control their behavior. The argument holds that adults should be responsible for their own financial decisions and that excessive regulation could stifle innovation and consumer choice.
DraftKings maintains that its system provides adequate safeguards. The company stated that if a customer’s behavior raises too many red flags, the company will proactively close an account, although it did not specify how often this occurs. This stance reflects a belief that the market is functioning correctly, with companies offering products that consumers choose to use, and with mechanisms in place for those who wish to limit their exposure.
The industry’s position is that 'responsible gaming' is a shared effort between the provider and the user. By offering a 'Responsible Gaming Center' where users can set budgets and track spending, companies argue they are fulfilling their ethical obligations. The right-leaning perspective often warns against paternalistic regulations that assume consumers are incapable of managing their own digital experiences.
What the Left Is Saying
Critics of the current regulatory approach argue that the burden of protection falls too heavily on the consumer, who may lack the cognitive bandwidth to self-regulate during moments of impulse. Advocates for stronger consumer protections point to the data showing that a small fraction of problem gamblers generate the majority of industry revenue, suggesting a business model that profits from addiction.
Lori Kalani, DraftKings’ chief responsible gaming officer, stated that the company believes it is 'doing a good job of educating people, of raising awareness, of making tools and resources available, of monitoring accounts.' However, critics note that Kalani’s framing ignores the structural incentives that encourage continued play. Lawmakers in states including Colorado and Massachusetts are now proposing stricter consumer protections, arguing that voluntary opt-in features are inadequate for public health concerns.
Matthew Gaskell, a British psychologist and expert on gambling addiction cited in the report, noted that a relatively small number of active losers account for a substantial amount of sportsbooks’ revenue. This perspective aligns with public health advocates who view the app design not as neutral, but as a mechanism that exploits psychological vulnerabilities to drive financial loss.
What the Numbers Show
According to the Siena Research Institute, nearly a quarter of all Americans and half of men aged 18 to 49 say they have an active sportsbook account. However, this growth has coincided with significant financial distress among users; about a quarter of active sportsbook account holders surveyed this year reported losing enough money to have trouble meeting financial obligations.
A 2024 study out of Connecticut found that 1.8% of problem gamblers in the state accounted for 51% of sports betting revenue. This statistic underscores the concentration of revenue among a small subset of users. In Massachusetts, company data provided to state regulators indicated that just over 8% of active DraftKings users were using responsible gaming tools as of April.
Pearson’s first in-app responsible gaming prompt appeared more than a week into his experiment, after he had lost roughly the equivalent of a minimum-wage worker’s monthly earnings in New York City. The notification, which cited hitting $2,500 in deposits, was legally required by New York law rather than triggered by Pearson’s specific betting behavior. The pop-up offered two options: set limits or 'I understand.' Pearson chose the latter and continued gambling.
The Bottom Line
The investigation reveals a gap between the existence of responsible gaming tools and their effective implementation. While features like budget setting and time reminders are available, their opt-in nature limits their impact for users struggling with addiction. The data suggests that without mandatory interventions or default settings that protect users from their own impulses, the current framework may fail to mitigate the public health risks associated with widespread online sports betting.
Policymakers in several states are now reviewing these findings. The key question for future regulation is whether to maintain the current model, which relies on user agency, or to impose stricter mandates on app design and account monitoring. The disparity between the small percentage of users utilizing safety tools and the large percentage of revenue derived from problem gamblers will likely drive legislative debate in upcoming sessions.