State-by-State Sports Betting Laws and Addiction Litigation Context

The 2018 Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. NCAA overturned the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which had prohibited most states from legalizing sports betting. What followed was a rapid state-by-state legalization wave — with wildly inconsistent consumer protections built into each state's framework. That inconsistency is one reason sports betting addiction litigation is proceeding across many jurisdictions simultaneously rather than consolidating quickly into a single federal MDL.

The Pre-Murphy Legal Landscape

Before May 2018, only Nevada had comprehensive legal sports betting under an exception PASPA carved out for states that had already operated sports betting programs. A handful of other states had limited exceptions. For the vast majority of Americans, legal sports wagering on mobile devices was not available, and the large-scale online sportsbook operators that now dominate the market had no legal US presence for retail gambling.

New Jersey brought the case that became Murphy v. NCAA after the state legislature passed a sports betting authorization law that the major professional and college sports leagues challenged. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that PASPA's anti-commandeering provisions violated the Constitution — states could not be forced to maintain federal prohibitions if they chose to act differently. After Murphy, sports betting legalization was entirely a state decision.

The Post-Murphy Expansion Timeline

The pace of state legalization after Murphy was extraordinary. New Jersey launched mobile sports betting within weeks of the decision. Delaware, Mississippi, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island followed within months. By 2021, sports betting was legal in more than two-thirds of US states. By early 2026, more than 35 states plus Washington, D.C. have authorized some form of legal sports wagering, with most of the major population states having mobile betting available.

The rapid expansion created one of the largest new behavioral addiction risk environments in American history. In states like New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, mobile sports betting was a new, legal, 24/7 product delivered through a smartphone to any adult with a credit card — with marketing campaigns that normalized it through endorsements by major sports figures, stadium naming rights, and integration into sports broadcast content. Problem gambling services were under-resourced relative to the scale of the rollout.

How State Regulatory Frameworks Differ

Each state that legalized sports betting created its own regulatory framework through its gaming commission or lottery authority. These frameworks differ significantly in their consumer protection requirements:

• Self-exclusion requirements: Most states require licensed sportsbooks to participate in a statewide self-exclusion database. The strength of these requirements varies: some states require operators to check the exclusion list before every deposit, while others have less rigorous enforcement mechanisms. In states with strong exclusion requirements, continued operator outreach to excluded users is more clearly a regulatory violation.
• Responsible gambling program requirements: States vary in what responsible gambling programs operators must fund and operate. Some require specific percentage contributions to problem gambling treatment funds; others have minimal requirements. The adequacy of an operator's responsible gambling program is relevant to litigation claims about whether the operator took reasonable steps to protect users.
• Advertising restrictions: Some states have banned or restricted certain marketing practices — New York prohibited "risk-free bet" terminology; other states have placed restrictions on advertising near schools or broadcasting during children's television programming. These state-specific restrictions inform what standard of care the operator was expected to meet in that jurisdiction.
• Deposit limits and cooling-off periods: A few states require operators to offer or even mandate deposit limit tools; others have no such requirements. The presence or absence of these tools affects both individual user behavior and the operator's ability to identify at-risk users.

States With the Most Significant Litigation Activity

Sports betting addiction litigation has been most active in states with both large betting populations and favorable plaintiff-side tort law:

• New Jersey: The largest mobile betting market in the country for several years post-Murphy, with a mature regulatory framework. NJ courts have seen significant litigation activity and the state's consumer fraud act provides a basis for claims beyond common law negligence.
• New York: Launched mobile sports betting in January 2022 and rapidly became the largest handle state in the nation. NY's strong consumer protection laws and state attorney general oversight make it a significant litigation jurisdiction. New York's prohibition on "risk-free bet" advertising is an example of state-level action that strengthens negligence claims against operators who continued using that language in other states.
• Illinois: Large population with relatively recent mobile betting launch (2021). Illinois courts have seen early complaint filings and the state's Consumer Fraud Act has been cited in pleadings.
• Pennsylvania: Early mover with a large market; Pennsylvania courts are active in the sports betting addiction litigation landscape.
• Michigan: Significant mobile market; early litigation filings raising product liability and consumer protection theories.

The Regulatory Gap and Litigation Theory

The core litigation argument connecting state regulatory frameworks to legal liability is the regulatory gap: every state that legalized sports betting imposed some consumer protection requirements — responsible gambling programs, self-exclusion systems, advertising restrictions — because legislators and regulators recognized that gambling disorder is a foreseeable harm of legal sports betting. Operators accepted these requirements as a condition of licensure. When operators then deployed design features and retention programs that circumvented or undercut those consumer protections, they were not just violating ethics — they were operating outside the framework the state imposed as the condition of granting them the right to operate.

This argument allows personal injury claims to reference regulatory violations as evidence of the applicable standard of care — not as the sole basis for liability, but as confirmation that the operators knew the consumer protection duty they owed and chose not to honor it.

What Your State's Framework Means for Your Claim

The state where your betting activity occurred typically governs which law applies to your claim. If you bet through a DraftKings account and used it primarily in New York, New York law is likely to apply. The specific consumer protection statutes, the specific regulatory requirements the operator was subject to, and the specific self-exclusion framework in your state all become relevant.

An attorney evaluating your case will assess which state's law applies and what theories are strongest under that state's framework. This is one reason sports betting addiction cases require legal evaluation rather than a one-size-fits-all answer — the regulatory framework varies substantially by state, and that variation matters for which claims are available and how strong they are.

Related Pages on This Site

• DraftKings and FanDuel lawsuit overview
• Signs of gambling addiction
• Check your eligibility