The complaint, filed in Massachusetts, names DraftKings as a defendant and alleges the company deployed AI systems to single out users most likely to respond to gambling promotions — a category the plaintiff says included people exhibiting problem gambling behaviour. The allegations have not been proven, and the case is at an early stage.
The legal hinge is the word "target." If DraftKings used predictive modelling to increase promotional contact with customers already showing signs of compulsive behaviour, that conduct sits uncomfortably against responsible gambling obligations that Massachusetts, like most licensed jurisdictions, builds into its regulatory framework. A company optimising for engagement is unremarkable; optimising for engagement specifically among a population showing harm indicators is a different claim, and that distinction is what the plaintiff needs to establish.
Massachusetts does not have a formal private right of action under its gambling statutes, so the complaint will likely lean on consumer protection law — Chapter 93A being the obvious vehicle — where the standard is whether conduct is unfair or deceptive, not whether it violated a licensing condition.
Nothing is decided. But if discovery produces evidence that the AI segmentation model explicitly flagged problem-gambling indicators as a predictor of promotional responsiveness, the gap between DraftKings' public responsible-gaming commitments and its internal data practices becomes the story inside the story.
Marcus Azzopardi