The Privacy Parlay: How Data Mining and Targeted Ads Drive Gambling Addiction

viv.daniel Paper, , , ,

The Privacy Parlay: How Data Mining and Targeted Ads Drive Gambling Addiction

Emily Weisser

 

I. Introduction

In the digital age, the gambler is not just the person placing the bets, they are also the data being wagered on. Every click, swipe, and deposit becomes part of a high-stakes game where the house rarely loses. Much like a parlay bet–where every leg must hit for the gambler to win–the modern gambling industry relies on data collection and targeted advertising to increase the number of returning customers, boosting its own profits while building a predictive framework that treats users as inputs rather than individuals. In this “privacy parlay,” the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of the house– the gambling operator.

The first leg of this parlay is the mining of consumer data, drawn from government-mandated identity verification information and voluntary interactions. Operators combine this data to build comprehensive behavioral profiles. The second leg involves monetizing this data through micro-targeted advertising, designed to exploit psychological vulnerabilities and nudge users toward repeated engagement. The third leg uses these insights to promote repeat play, conflating addiction with ordinary customer loyalty.

Despite the immense power of this system, the current regulatory landscape offers fragmented, inconsistent protection for consumers, leaving critical gaps in oversight. This essay explores data-driven gambling in the post-Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”) era and discusses the argument that a unified federal framework is necessary to regulate the privacy parlay–ensuring that data-driven gambling operates transparently, ethically, and in a manner that protects consumers from exploitation.

a. The Evolution of Online Gambling

Gambling took many forms from its earliest documentation in the fifteenth century until its eventual crackdown during the nineteenth century.[1] Throughout this period, games of chance were subject to varying degrees of moral and legal regulation. Early measures included the Idleness Statute of 1633, or the “Statute Against Idleness, Drunkenness, and Gaming,” enacted by the Puritans of Massachusetts to curb what they viewed as moral decay.[2] This was followed by the Quakers’ Great Law, which prohibited “evil sports and games.”[3] By the eighteenth century, colonies such as New Hampshire and Rhode Island actively supported restrictions on gambling as a means of preserving public virtue and social order.[4] Gambling was increasingly viewed not only as a private vice but as a threat to familial stability and communal morality–sentiments that would underpin the broader gambling prohibitions of the nineteenth century.

As society moved toward stricter regulation, organized sports were evolving into professional enterprises, particularly in baseball and boxing during the 1860s.[5] Betting booths and bookies were commonplace at sporting events, and even players themselves wagered on games, fueling public suspicion that sporting contests might be intentionally lost for profit.[6] Those fears were confirmed by the 1877 Louisville Grays scandal, in which players were caught throwing games in exchange for money.[7] The scandal prompted tight league rules and efforts to protect the integrity of competition.[8]

By the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, state gambling restrictions intensified. Florida prohibited the operation and participation in gambling houses in 1895[9], while New York’s Hart–Agnew Law of 1908 outlawed wagering on horse races and imposed significant fines and prison sentences on violators.[10] By 1910, horse racing had been banned in all states except Kentucky and Maryland, and Nevada had outlawed all forms of gambling.[11]

However, as with other prohibitions, gambling did not disappear–it simply went underground. The early twentieth century saw the proliferation of illicit gambling operations, often controlled by organized crime syndicates.[12] These groups capitalized on the enduring public appetite for wagering, establishing enterprises that ranged from backroom poker games to large scale betting rings.[13] Figures like Arnold Rothstein became infamous for fixing major sporting events, including the 1919 World Series, which he orchestrated by bribing players to lose deliberately.[14] Around the same time, the “numbers racket,” an illegal underground lottery system, thrived in urban centers like Harlem, New York, where entrepreneurs like Stephanie St. Clair built vast betting networks.[15] These operations not only violated legal restrictions but also demonstrated the immense profitability of organized gambling, laying the groundwork for the regulated industry that would emerge decades later, beginning in the 1930s.

In 1931, amid the economic devastation of the Great Depression[16], Nevada enacted the “Wide Open Gambling Bill,” legalizing commercial casino gaming to stimulate economic recovery.[17] For nearly twenty-five years, Nevada stood alone as the only state with fully legal casinos.[18] Other states slowly reintroduced gambling in limited forms: parimutuel horse race betting in Maryland and New York during the 1940s; charitable bingo in the 1950s; and the revival of state lotteries beginning in New Hampshire in 1964, followed by New York and New Jersey.[19] By the late 1970s, roughly a dozen states operated lotteries, and New Jersey became the second state to authorize full casino operations.[20] The 1980s saw the proliferation of charitable casino nights, bingo halls, and state-run lotteries, making some form of legal gambling available in nearly every state.[21]

Sports betting, however, evolved along a more complicated path. Even as casino and lottery gambling gained legitimacy, sports wagering remained largely illegal outside Nevada, where sportsbooks were formally regulated by the Nevada Gaming Control Act of 1959.[22] Elsewhere, underground bookmaking and offshore betting thrived, often tolerated locally despite their ties to organized crime.[23] A few states–Delaware, Oregon, and Montana–permitted limited forms of sports lotteries or parlay cards, which would later exempt them from federal prohibition.[24]

This patchwork of state practices was effectively frozen by the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”) of 1992, which provided a federal law that prohibited new state-authorized sports wagering.[25] PASPA carved out exceptions for Nevada’s full scale sportsbooks and for Delaware, Oregon, and Montana’s limited programs.[26] Championed by Senator Bill Bradley and backed by major professional leagues and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”), the law reflected persistent concerns about the integrity of competition following scandals such as the Pete Rose betting controversy and various college point-shaving cases.[27]

Yet, much like the previously attempted prohibitions on gambling, PASPA failed to suppress the practice it sought to eliminate. The underground sports betting market flourished, handling billions of dollars annually through illegal bookmakers and offshore platforms.[28] This persistent gap between law and practice underscored the futility of moralistic prohibitions in the face of public demand, ultimately culminating in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Murphy v. NCAA, which struck down PASPA and returned to the states the authority to determine their own gambling laws.[29] This new regulatory freedom coincided with the rapid growth of digital technology, mobile applications, and real-time data analytics–factors that transformed gambling from a localized brick and mortar, casino-based activity into a ubiquitous online marketplace. Within just a few years, over thirty states had legalized sports betting, with most incorporating online or mobile wagering components to maximize accessibility and tax revenue.[30]

In 2024, the global online gambling market size was estimated at $78.66 billion and is projected to reach $153.37 billion by 2030, with a steady compound annual growth rate of 11.9% from 2025 to 2030.[31]

Today’s gambling landscape reflects a hybrid economy of physical and digital platforms, where mobile sportsbooks dominate consumer engagement and traditional casinos increasingly integrate online operations. States such as New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Michigan have emerged as leaders in online gambling regulation, offering comprehensive systems for both sports betting and iGaming (online casinos and poker). However, the uneven regulatory landscape across states has left significant gaps in consumer protection, allowing powerhouse companies like DraftKings, Fanduel, and BetMGM to exploit their vast data resources and market dominance with minimal oversight, placing consumers at a distinct disadvantage in an industry driven by algorithmic targeting and behavioral manipulation.

II. Leg One: Mining Gambling Data

The first leg of the privacy parlay begins with the gambling operators mining of consumer data from existing frameworks.

a. Federally Required Data Collection

Pursuant to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (“UIGEA”) of 2006, gaming operators must “establish policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit restricted transactions,” which indirectly mandates the collection of certain consumer data.[32] For example, operators must verify the identity and location of users to ensure that they are not facilitating transactions for illegal gambling activities. Similarly, the Know Your Customer regulations that are enforced under the Bank Security Act by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), require casinos, including online operators, to confirm identities, monitor transactions, and assess risk to prevent money laundering.[33]

These federal obligations are complemented by state-specific regulations, such as those in Nevada and Massachusetts, which mandate the collection of personal information at account creation and require operators to implement robust data security measures. While framed as consumer protection, these rules primarily ensure company compliance and legal risk mitigation, rather than offering direct benefits to users.

b. Data Mined by Gambling Operators

Beyond legally required data, gambling operators actively mine additional information to enhance profitability. Platforms like FanDuel[34] and BetMGM[35] use cookies, third-party tracking, and user interactions to collect extensive consumer data. Cookies, small files stored on a user’s device, identify individual users and track online activity including browser language, visited domain names, and device type, helping gambling operators optimize the user experience.[36] Gambling operators also monitor spending habits, preferred games, the time of day users gamble, and the duration of gambling sessions, building comprehensive behavioral profiles.[37]

These platforms further integrate data from third-party sources, such as advertising networks, social media platforms, and analytics providers, to deepen their understanding of consumer behavior across multiple online environments.[38] Cross-platform tracking allows gambling operators to connect a user’s activity on different devices and websites, creating a more complete profile that can be leveraged for targeted promotions, personalized game recommendations, and predictive modeling.[39]

Online platforms, including gambling operators, often employ strategies that encourage users to consent to data collection. One such strategy involves dark patterns–“user-interface designs that influence or even coerce users into making choices that go against their own interests but benefit the website or app designer.”[40] These tactics subtly steer users into sharing personal information, agreeing to tracking, or enabling features that increase data capture, often without their full awareness. Simply checking a consent box or registering with the platform constitutes agreement to the platform’s privacy policy, which most users rarely read.[41] Even when consulted, critical information about how data is collected and used is often buried within lengthy, complex policies[42], making it difficult for users to fully understand the scope of their consent.

By combining legally required data with third-party and voluntarily provided information, gambling operators turn everyday user interactions into a powerful tool for algorithmic targeting and behavioral manipulation, reinforcing the structural advantage these companies hold over consumers.

III. Leg Two: Using the Gambler’s Data to Create Targeted Ads

The second leg of the privacy parlay involves gambling operators putting the gambler’s data to work through microtargeted advertising. These advertisements are tailored to specific individuals or groups based on their unique interests, behaviors, and spending patterns, all derived from extensive data mining and tracking. While targeted advertising is a common marketing strategy across industries, in the gambling sector it poses heightened risks to vulnerable populations, including individuals with gambling addictions and minors. The present regulatory gap allows for gambling operators to continue refining personalized advertising strategies that exploit behavioral data collected from their platforms.

a. “Gods Timing”

Microtargeted advertising enables operators to push content precisely when a user is most susceptible–often after a recent loss, a prolonged session, or during high-emotion events such as major sporting competitions. Algorithms analyze behavioral data to predict when a bettor is most likely to re-engage, sending notifications or bonus offers at those moments, creating what appears to be divine timing. For example, a 2025 study recorded 6,282 gambling messages during the NBA and NHL Finals[43], while another study observed 27,440 betting messages across the Premier League’s opening weekend.[44] These tactics blur the line between opportunity and manipulation.

b. The Risk Free Ad

Sign-up promotions in the form of “bet and get” offers create an illusion of security with phrases like “free bets” or “Bet $5, Get $300 If You Win.”[45] Such ads mislead gamblers into believing their wagers are risk-free by implying that any losses will be fully reimbursed.[46] In reality, reimbursement is issued as “bonus bets,” which differ from standard wagers.[47] When a bettor wins using a bonus bet, the operator retains the original bonus stake, paying out only the winnings, making the offer far less generous than it appears.

c. The Booster Ad

Booster promotions are designed to increase potential winnings on selected bets, either by altering the odds or adding extra profit, and are a common strategy used to encourage engagement. Odds boost promotions increase the payout ratio on specific wagers or lines chosen by the sportsbook, applying to spreads, moneylines, props or parlays, with odds increased anywhere from 10% to 50%.[49] While framed as a way to enhance winnings, these ads are strategically timed to encourage more betting, particularly on riskier or less favorable lines. Profit boost promotions, by contrast, increase the bettor’s profit by a fixed percentage without altering the original odds or requiring a larger wager. For instance, a sportsbook may advertise “25% Profit Boost on Your First Bet,” meaning that a $50 wager on a moneyline at +200 odds would normally yield $100, but the platform adds an extra 25%, increasing the payout to $125. Profit boosts incentivize wagers that bettors might otherwise avoid, creating the perception of added value and encouraging continued engagement. Both odds and profit boosts leverage behavioral insights and targeted timing, reinforcing the structural advantage sportsbooks hold over consumers.

d. The “Dear Valued Customer” Ad

This advertisement is a type of “sludge” strategy that works to create friction to prevent beneficial action. When a user attempts to close their account, operators follow up with messages asking if they are sure about leaving, often appealing to emotions, loyalty, or perceived missed opportunities. These follow-ups often highlight “special offers” to entice the user to re-engage. By combining friction with targeted messaging, these ads subtly pressure users to continue gambling, even when they have attempted to stop.

In 2018, shortly after PASPA was overturned, Keith Whyte, Executive Director of the National Council on Problem Gambling, testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, warning: “This Frankenstein’s monster of advertising, access, and action is unprecedented in America, and indeed anywhere else in the world. As a result, it is likely that most Americans will soon be bombarded by marketing urging them to bet instantly from their phone on every action by every player on every play in every game in every sport.”[52] This prediction has proven to be accurate. Gambling operators now use these advertising strategies to attract new users and retain existing ones, identifying moments of vulnerability and deploying personalized promotions designed to sustain betting behavior.

IV. Leg Three: Addiction Disguised as Repeat Customers

The third and final leg of the privacy parlay examines how gambling operators capitalize on data mining and targeted advertisements by cultivating “repeat customers,” who are often individuals struggling with addiction.

In the post-PASPA world, “sportsbooks have expanded from a single state to thirty-eight, handling hundreds of billions of dollars in wagers, mostly online, and coinciding with record-breaking demand for gambling addiction support as millions seek help.” Of the $121.1 billion wagered in 2023, 94% was placed online, illustrating how a once taboo pastime has become a normalized and an increasingly accessible part of American life.[54]

Alongside the growth of online gambling, internet searches for “help with gambling addiction” have increased 23% nationally, corresponding with “approximately 6.5 to 7.3 million searches for gambling addiction help-seeking nationally.”[55] This surge in searches regarding help for gambling addiction correlates with the opening of sportsbooks in individual states: “Illinois (35%), Massachusetts (47%), Michigan (37%), New Jersey (34%), New York (37%), Ohio (67%), Pennsylvania (50%) and Virginia (30%). . . . ”[56]

Calls to the National Problem Gambling Helpline have surged in recent years, reflecting the growing impact of online gambling.[57] In 2021, the helpline experienced a 43% increase in calls, a 59.8% rise in texts, and an 84.1% jump in chat volume compared to the previous year.[58] This upward trend continued into 2025, with the helpline receiving approximately 20,000 calls per month, marking a significant rise from previous years.[59] The increase in demand for support services underscores the urgent need for effective measures to address gambling-related harm.

Additionally, the financial health of individuals and families has declined in states that have introduced online gambling. In the four years following legalization, bankruptcy filings increased by 28%, debt collection actions rose by 8%, and household net investments decreased.[60]

These trends demonstrate that targeted advertising, combined with the accessibility of online gambling, does more than drive repeat play—it actively contributes to addictive behaviors. “Ads are built to make gambling feel normal and harmless. They can make you doubt your decision to quit or convince you that ‘just one bet’ will not hurt.”[61] By using data to identify vulnerable users and push personalized promotions, operators reinforce engagement patterns that can escalate into problematic gambling, highlighting the urgent need for stronger consumer protections and responsible gaming interventions.

V. Current Regulation of the Use of Gambling Data

As of October 2025, there is no federal law specifically addressing the use of gambling data. Recent legislative efforts include the SAFE Bet Act[62], which aims to create nationwide regulations and standards for the online sports gambling industry. If enacted, the law would require states offering sports betting to “ensure operators comply with minimum federal standards in three categories: marketing, affordability and artificial intelligence.”[63] Under the bill, sports betting advertising would be prohibited during live sporting events, and the “Risk Free Ad” and the “Booster Ad” would be banned. It would also prohibit prop bets on college and amateur sports and require a Surgeon General’s report on public health challenges related to sports betting. In addition, the American Privacy Rights Act (“APRA”) was introduced in June 2024.[64] This legislation proposed mandating data minimization and prohibiting companies, which would include gambling operators[65], from collecting, using and storing consumer data for uses outside the scope of legitimate business purposes.

While the U.S. has no comprehensive federal privacy law, several states have enacted legislation regulating how consumer data is collected, used, and shared.

a. Connecticut

The Connecticut Data Privacy Act represented one of the first comprehensive privacy laws of its kind.[66] The law was amended by SB 1295[67], which will take effect on July 1, 2026. The law imposes obligations on all companies that process data, regardless of volume.[68] The act prohibits companies from selling personal data without the consumer’s clear and informed consent. It also requires companies to disclose if personal data is being collected, used, or sold for training AI models and strengthens protections for children. Gambling operators in particular are affected because they rely heavily on the collection and analysis of personal data to target and retain users, making compliance with the act essential to their operations.

b. New Jersey

New Jersey’s iGaming law includes several consumer protection and data integrity provisions.[69] If a patron suspends their account, casino licensees are prohibited from sending that patron any gaming related electronic mail during the suspension period. Additionally, client terminal software used for internet or mobile gaming must not contain unauthorized data collection mechanisms, file extraction tools, malware, or any other features that compromise the integrity of the terminal or the data it stores. Internet gaming operators and related vendors are also prohibited from retaining patron account information without express written consent.

c. Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board regulates the gambling industry, including consumer protections and data security requirements.[70] A larger gaming expansion bill enacted in 2017 requires operators to obtain separate licenses for different categories of online gaming and maintain robust cybersecurity systems that safeguard proton data and financial information. These regulations prohibit unauthorized access, data sharing, and retention beyond regulatory or operational necessity, and licensees must promptly report any data breaches or system intrusions.

These are just a few examples of states that have strengthened protections for consumer and gambler data privacy. While these measures represent important progress, the patchwork of state regulations leaves significant gaps in protection, prompting calls for a federal law that ensures consistent safeguards for all gamblers.

VI. The Argument for Federal Regulation

In addition to closing gaps in consumer data protection, support for federal regulation of gambling advertisements increasingly centers on data privacy. Advocates argue that much like tobacco marketing once exploited vulnerable demographics, such as children, modern gambling operators leverage personal data to target consumers most susceptible to addiction, raising both privacy and public health concerns.

Much like the current state of online gambling, rising health concerns over addiction and the glamorization of risky behavior in tobacco advertising eventually spurred federal action.[71] The Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 banned cigarette advertisements on television and radio, reflecting a growing recognition of advertising’s influence on vulnerable populations. Broadcasting networks pushed back, arguing that such prohibitions infringed upon their First Amendment right to free speech.[72] However, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly[73], restrictions on commercial advertising are evaluated based on the Central Hudson Test.[74]

Under this framework, courts consider whether the government’s interest in the regulation is substantial and whether the restriction directly advances that interest without being more extensive than necessary.[75] For proponents of limiting gambling advertisements, this precedent provides a viable path forward: the government’s interest in mitigating gambling addiction and protecting consumer privacy could satisfy the Central Hudson standard if restrictions are narrowly tailored to address demonstrable harms, such as data-driven targeting of vulnerable users. Supporters can rely on empirical evidence linking specific advertising practices—like the “Risk Free Ad” and “Booster Ad”—to harmful gambling behaviors and demonstrate that a ban would not unduly restrict all commercial speech by limiting the restriction to particular types of ads or to the timing of such ads, like during high profile events.

Though this approach specifically addresses the targeted advertising front of the privacy parlay, when paired with comprehensive privacy regulation, it helps level the playing field, ensuring that gambling operators are held accountable, and gamblers are better protected.

VII. Conclusion

Privacy—what it is and what it looks like—has changed dramatically since the introduction of technology and data analytics. In the digital age, every click, swipe, and interaction becomes a stake in a high-risk game in which multiple layers of data collection, behavioral profiling, and targeted advertisement are strung together, and the odds overwhelmingly favor the house–gambling operators. Personal information is both the currency and the wager. Companies maintain structural advantages that let them monetize and exploit this data with minimal oversight, leaving gamblers more vulnerable to addiction than ever. However, with thoughtful regulation of gambling operators, the house doesn’t always have to win.

[1] See George G. Fenich, A Chronology of (Legal) Gaming in the U.S., 2 UNLV Gaming Rsch. & Rev. J. 65, 66 (1996).

[2] J.M. Fenster, Nation of Gamblers, Am. Heritage (Sept. 1994), https://www.americanheritage.com/nation-gamblers.

[3] Id.

[4] See Fenich, supra note 1, at 66.

[5] See Fenster, supra note 2.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Fla. Stat. § 849.01 (2025).

[10] See The Day That the Belmont Stakes and New York Horse Racing Died, Past the Wire (May 24, 2021), https://pastthewire.com/the-day-that-the-belmont-stakes-and-new-york-horse-racing-died/.

[11] See Fenich, supra note 1, at 69.

[12] Barron van Den Berg, A Comprehensive History of Gambling in the United States, Medium (Nov. 26, 2024), https://medium.com/@barronqasem/a-comprehensive-history-of-gambling-in-the-united-states-fd5b64404c2c.

[13] Id.

[14] The Biggest Sports Betting Scandals in History: From Shohei Ohtani’s Interpreter to the Black Sox, N.Y. Post (June 4, 2024), https://nypost.com/betting/the-biggest-sports-betting-scandals-in-history/.

[15] Farrell Evans, How Stephanie St. Clair Built a Gambling Empire in 1920s Harlem, History (May 9, 2022), https://www.history.com/articles/stephanie-st-clair-harlem-queen-numbers-racket.

[16] History.com Editors, Nevada Legalizes Gambling, History (Mar. 3, 2010), https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/march-19/nevada-legalizes-gambling.

[17] A Bit of History: Nevada Gambling Legalized, 15 UNLV Gaming Rsch. & Rev. J., 95, 95. (2011), https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/grrj/vol15/iss1/7.

[18] See Fenich, supra note 1, at 72.

[19] Id. at 70–72.

[20] Id. at 72–73.

[21] Id. at 73–74.

[22] Nev. Gaming Comm’n, Gaming Commission, https://www.gaming.nv.gov/gaming-commission/.

[23] See Eric Meer, The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA): A Bad Bet for the States, 2 UNLV Gaming L.J. 281 (2011), https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/glj/vol2/iss2/7.

[24] See Brett Smiley, A History of Sports Betting in the United States: Gambling Laws and Outlaws, SportsHandle (Nov. 13, 2017), https://sportshandle.com/gambling-laws-legislation-united-states-history/.

[25] S.474, 102nd Cong. § 3701–04 (1992).

[26] See Smiley, supra note 24.

[27] See David Purdum, Sports Betting Legalization: How We Got Here, ESPN (May 22, 2018), https://www.espn.com/sports-betting/story/_/id/23561576/chalk-line-how-got-legalized-sports-betting; see also The Biggest Sports Betting Scandals in History: From Shohei Ohtani’s Interpreter to the Black Sox, supra note 14.

[28] See Adam Liptak & Kevin Draper, Supreme Court Clears Way for Sports Betting, N.Y. Times (May 14, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/us/politics/supreme-court-sports-betting-new-jersey.html.

[29] See Murphy v. NCAA, 584 U.S. 453 (2018).

[30] Mika Ono, Study Reveals Surge in Gambling Addiction Following Legalization of Sports Betting, UC San Diego Today (Feb. 17, 2025), https://today.ucsd.edu/story/study-reveals-surge-in-gambling-addiction-following-legalization-of-sports-betting#:~:text=Since%20the%202018%20Supreme%20Court,wagers%20during%202023%20placed%20online.

[31] Online Gambling Market Size (2025-2030), Grand View Research, https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/online-gambling-market (last accessed Nov. 21, 2025).

[32] Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act Examination Guidance and Procedures, FIL-10035A (June 30, 2010), https://www.fdic.gov/news/financial-institution-letters/2010/fil10035a.pdf.

[33] Doug Bonderud, The Importance of KYC for Online Gambling, Persona (Oct. 24, 2022), https://withpersona.com/blog/the-importance-of-kyc-for-online-gambling.

[34] FanDuel Inc., Privacy Policy, https://www.fanduel.com/privacy (last updated Apr. 28, 2025).

[35] BetMGM, Inc., Privacy Policy, https://www.betmgminc.com/privacy-policy/ (last updated Aug. 27, 2020).

[36] What Are Internet Cookies and What Do They Do?, Kaspersky, https://usa.kaspersky.com/resource-center/definitions/cookies (last accessed Nov. 21, 2025).

[37] Dana Gampe, How Casinos Use Data to Personalize a Player’s Online Experience, Databird Business Journal (Sept. 26, 2024), https://www.databirdjournal.com/posts/how-casinos-use-data-to-personalize-a-players-online-experience#:~:text=Casinos%20implement%20various%20methods%20to,understand%20player%20habits%20and%20preferences.

[38] DraftKings Inc., Privacy Notice, https://myaccount.draftkings.com/documents/privacy-notice (last updated May 21, 2025).

[39] See Adjust, What Is Cross-Device Tracking?, https://www.adjust.com/glossary/cross-device-tracking/ (last accessed Nov. 21, 2025); see also Florin Mihai et al., AI Personalization and Its Influence on Online Gamblers’ Behavior, 15 Behav. Sci. 779 (2025) https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15060779.

[40] Gregory M. Dickinson, Privately Policing Dark Patterns, 57 Ga. L. Rev. 1633, 1635 (2023), Gregory-M.-Dickinson-Privately-Policing-Dark-Patterns-57-Georgia-Law-Review-1633-2023.pdf.

[41] Sign Up for DraftKings Sportsbook – Maine, DraftKings Inc., https://myaccount.draftkings.com/signup?intendedSiteExp=US-ME-SB (last accessed Nov. 21, 2025).

[42] FanDuel Inc., Privacy Policy, https://www.fanduel.com/privacy (last updated Apr. 28, 2025).

[43] Raffaello Rossi et. al., Betting on the Finals – Prevalence of Gambling Marketing in the NBA and NHL Finals (2025).

[44] Philip Buckingham, Research Shows 27,440 Gambling Messages Evidence During Opening Premier League Weekend in UK, The Athletic (Oct. 8, 2025),https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6697257/2025/10/08/premier-league-gambling-betting-advertising/?redirected=1.

[45] Benjy Apelbaum, There’s No Such Thing as a Free Bet: How to Stop Misleading the Public in Gambling Advertisements,  U. Mich. J.L. Reform (Feb. 16, 2024), https://mjlr.org/2024/02/16/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-free-bet-how-to-stop-misleading-the-public-in-gambling-advertisements/.

[46] Id.

[47] Id.

[48] Marc Tersigni, Evaluating Odds Boost Promos: Are They Worth It?, Betstamp (Sept. 1, 2024), https://betstamp.com/education/evaluating-odds-boost-promos-are-they-worth-it.

[49] Id.

[50] Matt Harris, ESPN BET Odds Boosts Explained, Action Network (Oct. 8, 2025), https://www.actionnetwork.com/online-sports-betting/reviews/espn-bet/odds-boost.

[51] See Philip Newall, Sludge, Dark Patterns and Dark Nudges: A Taxonomy of Online Gambling Platforms’ Deceptive Design Features, 120 Addiction 1916 (Oct. 2025), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12426356/#add70085-sec-0005.

[52] Keith Whyte, Written Testimony of Keith Whyte, Before the Senate Judiciary Comm., 118th Cong., at 2 (Dec. 17, 2024), https://www.ncpgambling.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2024.12.17-Senate-Judiciary-Written-Testimony-of-Keith-Whyte-NCPG.pdf? (quoting Keith Whyte’s testimony given before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security & Investigation in 2018.).

[53] Mika Ono, Study Reveals Surge in Gambling Addiction Following Legalization of Sports Betting, UC San Diego Today (Feb. 17, 2025), https://today.ucsd.edu/story/study-reveals-surge-in-gambling-addiction-following-legalization-of-sports-betting.

[54] Id.

[55] Id.

[56] Id.

[57] Diana Kwon, Sports Betting Ads Are Everywhere. Here’s Why They’re So Hard to Ignore, NPR (June 18, 2022), https://www.npr.org/2022/06/18/1104952410/sports-betting-ads-sports-gambling.

[58] National Council on Problem Gambling, National Problem Gambling Helpline™ Modernization Project, https://www.ncpgambling.org/problem-gambling/helpline-modernization/ (last accessed Nov. 11, 2025).

[59] Brian Pempus, 1-800-GAMBLER: Nationwide Helpline For Gambling Addiction, Gambling Harm (Sept. 22, 2025), https://gamblingharm.org/800-gambler-hotline-nationwide-help/.

[60] Jonathan Ponciano, Americans are Betting Their Future on Sports. Here’s Why They’re Losing, Investopedia (Jan. 10, 2025), https://www.investopedia.com/americans-sports-betting-losing-8768618.

[61], How the Psychological Impact of Gambling Ads Can Sabotage Healing, East Point Behavioral Health (May 3, 2025), https://eastpointbehavioralhealth.com/blog/how-the-psychological-impact-of-gambling-ads-can-sabotage-healing.

[62] Rep. Paul Tonko, SAFE Bet Act Text, 119th Cong. (Mar. 11, 2025), https://tonko.house.gov/uploadedfiles/safe_bet_act_text_3.11.25.pdf.

[63] Rep. Paul Tonko, SAFE Bet Act Fact Sheet, 119th Cong. (Mar. 25, 2025), https://tonko.house.gov/uploadedfiles/safe_bet_fact_sheet_3.25_119th.pdf.

[64] Chris D. Linebaugh et al., The American Privacy Rights Act, CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11161, 118th Cong. (2024), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11161.

[65] H.R. 8818, 118th Cong. at 7 (Discussion Draft) https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/American_Privacy_Rights_Act_of_2024_Discussion_Draft_0ec8168a66.pdf#page=7.

[66] Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 42-515a to 42-515e (2023), https://portal.ct.gov/ag/sections/privacy/the-connecticut-data-privacy-act.

[67] S.B. 1295, 2025 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Conn. 2025), https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/CGABillStatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=SB1295.

[68] Lindsey Tonsager, Connecticut Legislature Amends Its Privacy Statute, Inside Privacy (June 26, 2025), https://www.insideprivacy.com/state-privacy/connecticut-legislature-amends-its-privacy-statute/.

[69] N.J. Admin. Code § 13:69O (2025), https://www.nj.gov/lps/ge/docs/Regulations/CHAPTER69O.pdf.

[70] American Gaming Association, Pennsylvania Overview, in State of the States 2025 (Feb. 2025), https://www.americangaming.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Pennsylvania_Overview.pdf.

[71] Theo Gabor, From Marlboros to Moneylines: Why Sports Gambling Ads May Need a Regulatory Check Brooklyn Sports & Entertainment Law Blog (June 25, 2025), https://sports-entertainment.brooklaw.edu/sports/from-marlboros-to-moneylines-why-sports-gambling-ads-may-need-a-regulatory-check/.

[72] Id.

[73] Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 549, 121 S. Ct. 2404 (2001).

[74] Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557, 100 S. Ct. 2343 (1980).

[75] Id.