Are Sportsbooks Targeting Addicts? A Look at Marketing Tactics

Sportsbooks are having a field day. Betting is booming, and it’s everywhere you look—even if you aren’t looking for it.

Turn on the TV? Commercials from BetMGM. Watch TikTok? Promoted ads from DraftKings. Instagram and Facebook? FanDuel. You get the general idea. If you have zero interest in sports betting, you are still exposed to tons of marketing from these entities.

There are everyday ads, special game day ads, and targeted push alerts for users. The platforms are dueling it out in the media in a fierce competition for your attention and your money. And as the industry gets more sophisticated? The marketing tactics follow suit. Which poses a tough but legit question: Do some of these ads target the most vulnerable players? The ones who are having a hard time stopping?

That’s what we want to know! Keep reading to discover what we found out about how sportsbooks use data, design, and psychology to keep people betting, and if that the line between marketing and manipulation is bordering on nonexistent.

The Rise of Personalized Sports Betting Ads

The marketing machine has gone from mass promotion to one-on-one persuasion. Ads used to be limited to TV and stadium banners, but sportsbook ads got a digital glow-up, and they’re following users from social media platforms to inboxes. How do sportsbooks use our data, habits, and behavioral triggers to time their ads perfectly, and, in some cases, problematically? Let’s get into it!

From TV Spots to TikTok — How Sportsbooks Found You

Ten years ago, sportsbook marketing meant just TV ads and stadium sponsorships. Today? It’s hyper-personalized and follows you everywhere you go. In the early days of legal U.S. sports betting (post-2018), companies like DraftKings and FanDuel blanketed the airwaves and plastered their logos in sports arenas. Sports broadcasts began to feature odds updates, and podcasts got peppered with betting ads. But traditional ads were just the beginning.

Push notifications on your phone prod you with “special offers” at the right (or wrong) moments. A dormant customer could get a text for a “limited-time” free bet bundle, and that’s dangerous if you’ve been trying to cut down or stop. And if you do stop, you’re likely to get a “we miss you” reactivation bonus, as the companies openly talk about “win-back” campaigns to lure back lapsed users.

How Do They Know?

Behavioral tracking and AI have enabled platforms to analyze everything. Like your favorite teams, how much you wager, when you bet, and which bets you almost won. If you always bet on the Warriors, don’t be shocked when your app serves up a boosted odds promo on the next Warriors game. 

A betting tech CEO explained how their AI engine personalizes offers based on each user’s habits, suggesting “Because you bet on this, you might also like this” bets to keep users playing. 72% of sportsbook operators surveyed said a “personalized player experience” is the biggest factor in keeping customers betting.

The targeted tactics represent a huge evolution from the one-size billboard ad. Sportsbook marketing has become a 24/7, personalized dialogue, trailing you from TV to X to the phone you’re holding. The convenience is undeniable, but so is the concern that this kind of precision is being used to exploit our weaknesses.

Behavioral Psychology Behind the Promotions

You’ve no doubt seen a “risk-free bet” or a bonus pop up at just the right time, and it’s no coincidence. Read on to find out how sportsbooks use psychology, aka dopamine triggers, loss-chasing incentives, and near-miss rewards, to make betting addictive by design.

Free Bets Aren’t Really Free

Just like a physical casino, it’s not an accident that sportsbooks and gambling sites are addictive. The platforms are all engineered with the same psychology that casinos have used forever; only now it’s been supercharged for mobile. What are some of the powerful hooks that are built into betting promos and apps? The following:

Who’s Most at Risk?

Then there are the bettors who get the “VIP” treatment, but that’s not always a good thing. Customers are treated differently based on how much they spend, and sportsbooks use that to zero in on them with the most aggressive marketing tactics.

Data-Driven or Dangerously Predatory?

The biggest spenders (aka whales) and most frequent gamblers, who are those who are in the highest risk category, always get the most aggressive attention. The high-value customers are courted with VIP perks, personal managers, and constant offers.

A recent UK court case revealed just how predatory this can get. A recovering gambling addict testified that a betting company bombarded him with over 1,300 promotional emails in two years. He had never meaningfully consented to this kind of marketing and was spending all of his wages on bets, which is an obvious sign of problem gambling.

And it’s by no means an isolated incident. Watchdogs have long noted that VIP and loyalty programs ensnare problem gamblers. A leaked industry report in Britain found that a tiny fraction of customers (usually VIPs) generated a huge share of deposits—at one betting firm, only 2% of users accounted for 83% of all deposits. The VIPs were disproportionately likely to be addicts or on the verge. The companies lured them in with free bets, cashback on losses, and event tickets, which were basically rewards for being a big loser.

It’s not surprising that U.K. regulators cited VIP schemes as a factor in 7 out of 10 regulatory penalties for failing to protect problem gamblers. The UK Gambling Commission eventually stepped in with strict new rules to curb “irresponsible VIP practices,” warning that companies have to do thorough checks before showering perks on someone who might be gambling beyond their means.

In the U.S., regulation hasn’t yet caught up to such tactics, and some operators are really pushing the envelope. Internal job postings have hinted at priorities that put profit over player safety.

FanDuel, owned by Flutter Entertainment, advertised VIP account manager roles that were expected to “increase player activity and drive revenue.” Their job description is to get the top customers to bet more, which is way different than Flutter’s practice in the U.K., where VIP managers aren’t incentivized by customer spending, specifically to avoid problematic exploitation. FYI: FanDuel removed that specific phrasing after it drew scrutiny in 2024.

And although British online casinos have limits like a £10 cap per slot spin to slow down high rollers, the same company’s U.S. platforms allow far higher bets in the absence of such rules. All of this suggests that, in newer markets like the U.S., data-driven targeting of big spenders slides into dangerously predatory territory before regulators can pump the brakes.

Who else is at risk? Marketing algorithms also single out people who exhibit “chase” behavior or other red-flag patterns. Those who regularly deposit after losses or play at 3 am will get tagged for special offers, when in reality they’re showing signs of distress. Insiders and experts worry that with advanced AI, sportsbooks could identify and exploit susceptible gamblers with chilling precision.

Dr. Timothy Fong of UCLA’s Gambling Studies Program said, “AI can create predatory scenarios, where people who are already vulnerable because of mental health issues or a gambling addiction could be manipulated or targeted without their knowledge.” In other words, the same data tools that could be used to intervene and help are being used to maximize revenue from those who are least able to resist.

Ultimately, problem gamblers and those who are teetering on the edge are at the highest risk of being targeted by intense marketing. They bet more, so they’re valued more, which is a bleak reality. 

An addiction advocate asked, “What percentage of gambling profits come from those with a disorder?” The answer? Several analyses suggest that it’s alarmingly high, anywhere from 15% on the low end to possibly one-third or more of revenues coming from people with gambling problems. This creates a perverse incentive: the house needs its most addicted players to keep playing. And that makes the line between “VIP treatment” and predation very, very thin.

Loopholes in Self-Exclusion and Compliance

If you’re trying to slow down or quit? Welp, the ads might not let you. Self-exclusion is supposed to give gamblers a way out, but there are big holes in the system that allow marketing messages to get through. Sportsbooks (and affiliates) still reach self-banned users, and the fragmented oversight just isn’t cutting it.

When Self-Bans Fail and Ads Keep Coming

There are people who know that they have a gambling problem, and self-exclusion programs are supposed to be a lifeline, and in theory, they are! . You can ban yourself from betting sites and casinos, and the companies have to stop taking your bets and stop marketing to you. 

Unfortunately, this is full of loopholes, and addicted gamblers are pushed by the marketing that they tried to escape.

A glaring example happened in the UK during what was ironically the “Safer Gambling Week.” Flutter’s Sky Bet brand mistakenly sent out a blast email with a bonus offer (“Take a peek at what your mystery bonus is… opt in, spend £5 and claim your 100 free spins”) to thousands of people, including recovering addicts who had self-excluded from all gambling. 

The people had taken the proactive step to ban themselves via the GamStop program, yet here they were, getting a tempting promo right in their inbox. The fallout was quick: regulators launched a probe, Sky Bet apologized, and campaigners were outraged.

A self-excluded man said, “They shouldn’t be targeting anyone, let alone people who’ve told them they have a problem… I tried to access my account [after that email].” And a former party leader in Parliament lambasted it as “Outrageous…self-regulation doesn’t work…People trying to stop are being targeted, like throwing a free shot of tequila at an alcoholic.”

That incident exposed a loophole: Human or system error can accidentally (or carelessly) keep problem gamblers on marketing lists. Regulators in jurisdictions explicitly ban contacting self-excluded patrons, as it’s a basic responsible gambling requirement, but we keep seeing failures. 

In the U.S., Caesars Entertainment was fined for sending promo emails to 231 people on the self-exclusion list, soliciting their business. PointsBet sportsbook was also fined after it sent over 500 marketing texts/emails to self-excluded individuals due to a “technical glitch.” Every single one of those contacts is a potential trigger for relapse. The people who are trying hardest to quit are being dangled bait, and even if it’s a mistake, it’s negligent.

Then there’s the fragmented nature of self-exclusion databases. Self-exclusion is done state-by-state or operator-by-operator. If you ban yourself from one app or in one state, another company might not know about it. A problem gambler could self-exclude from all the apps in New Jersey, but then get sign-up offers when they cross into Pennsylvania or when a new sportsbook launches that isn’t part of a unified program. 

Unlike the UK’s GamStop, which has one national database that operators have to check, the U.S. lacks a universal system, though the major firms have begun discussing sharing exclusion data. Until recently, major U.S. operators weren’t sharing lists of problem gamblers with each other at all, meaning that someone who is barred on FanDuel could just hop on DraftKings unnoticed.

Even within a single platform, slick marketing finds its way around self-exclusion. Affiliate marketing and third-party ads are a gray area. You can unsubscribe from Operator so-and-so’s emails, but if an affiliate website you gave your email to is promoting Operator so-and-so, you still get indirectly targeted. Worse, investigative reports found gambling sites covertly used tools like Meta’s tracking pixel to tag visitors and then bombard them with betting ads on Facebook, all without clear consent. 

So even if you don’t sign up or you actively opt out, just visiting a sportsbook site can cause your data to be shared with ad networks that will keep pitching you bets as you browse the web. U.K. lawmakers called out these secret data-sharing practices as “out of control,” noting how they undermine attempts by vulnerable individuals to disconnect.

Finally, accounts are really hard to truly “delete.” Users have complained that after self-excluding, they keep getting generic sports updates or game result notifications from apps. The content isn’t overtly a promo, but it could still pull them back in.

The Industry’s Defense

The sportsbooks all say that they’re doing their part, but are they really?

There are responsible gambling tools and public pledges, as the companies insist that they’re not preying on addicts. Here’s what they claim, what they offer, and where those efforts look and sound more like PR than protection for players.

What the Sportsbooks Have to Say in Response

Sportsbook operators insist that they are deeply committed to ethical marketing and player safety. If you listen to the companies themselves, you’ll hear a lot about “responsible gambling” tools and initiatives. So, what do they claim, and how does it measure up?

First of all, the major platforms all highlight the suite of safety features that are built into their apps: deposit limits, loss limits, wager caps, cool-off periods, self-exclusion options, etc.

Players are able to set up daily or monthly deposit maximums, or get a pop-up after a certain number of hours of play that tells them to take a break. Sportsbooks also run “reality check” features that remind you of the time or money spent. All this is usually accessible under account settings.

The caveat? Very few people actually use them. Research from New Jersey found that only about 1% to 5% of young bettors are using the voluntary limit-setting tools, and that’s a teeny fraction. Yes, the tools exist, but they usually serve as talking points rather than solid safeguards for the masses.

The industry also touts its responsible marketing codes. In the U.S., the American Gaming Association (AGA) has a marketing code of conduct that members say they follow, like no advertising to minors, clear “21+” and problem-gambling warnings on ads, etc.  

All sportsbook commercials or billboards now have the tagline: “Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER.” And in fine print, they list eligibility and terms. The companies argue that the disclaimers and the promotion of helplines demonstrate their commitment to mitigating harm. 

The critics? They think that a tiny footer or a rushed voice-over in an ad is pretty much worthless for problem gamblers. How many addicted gamblers will call that number when an ad is hyping up a “free bet” offer?

In public statements, executives stress that they don’t want problem gamblers. They claim it’s bad for business in the long run if customers ruin their lives (and finances). In 2024, seven of the largest U.S. sportsbook companies formed a new trade group, the Responsible Online Gaming Association (ROGA), and pledged over $20 million for research, education, and a “best practices” charter for safer gambling.

The big firms said for the first time that they’ll collaborate to share data on self-excluded and at-risk players, which could help prevent a banned user from just migrating to another platform. It’s a promising step on paper; the group’s mission statement talks about “driving a race to the top” on safety standards and making responsible gambling tools more accessible.

Sportsbook operators also point to the resources they devote to compliance teams and AI monitoring. Most have algorithms that supposedly flag unusual betting patterns that might indicate a problem (like very rapid bets, drastic increases in deposits, etc.). Some have started using predictive models to reach out to players who show signs of trouble, which entails sending them responsible gambling messages or freezing accounts pending review. In regulated markets like the U.K., this is becoming a requirement (affordability checks once losses pass a certain threshold). In the U.S., it’s voluntary so far, but companies say, “We monitor and intervene if and when needed.”

Despite all of their defenses, the effectiveness and sincerity of industry efforts are debated. Critics argue that for all the talk, the proof is sorely lacking. The safety nets have big holes, as one problem gambler was allowed to blow through all his money without intervention until a court intervened. 

And while operators do encourage “responsible play,” they simultaneously inundate users with promos. Professor Heather Wardle, a gambling behavior researcher, said, “It’s convenient for the industry to frame it as ‘all about individual responsibility,’ as it shifts focus off the companies’ aggressive tactics.” Self-imposed limits don’t hurt profits, but stopping targeted ads to a high roller does.

Then there are some in the gambling industry who acknowledge the balance. An AGA spokesperson explained that legal sportsbooks feel pressure to make betting as engaging and frictionless as possible because they’re competing with rivals and black-market sites. The argument goes like this: if we don’t offer big bonuses and fun features, the customer will go somewhere else to get them. And the truth is that marketing is an arms race, particularly in the U.S., where companies spent over a billion dollars on advertising in 2024 to fight for market share. None of them wants to dial back personalized promos and lose ground unilaterally.

So the industry’s answer, broadly, is: “Yes, we market heavily, but we play within the rules and provide tools for anyone who wants to stay in control.” They highlight their responsible gaming messaging, partnerships with addiction research groups, and the fact that many people can and do gamble recreationally without any issues. It’s a balance of “promote the fun, but warn about the risks.”

Is it enough? Most experts and regulators are not anywhere near convinced. They see a huge disconnect between the glossy responsible gambling brochures and the reality of apps that are engineered to maximize play.

Expert Opinions and Red Flags

For years, experts and advocates have been sounding the alarm about gambling addiction and the harm it causes. Part of this is the marketing practices that look way more exploitative than ethical.

What the Researchers and Advocates Say

Addiction experts, consumer advocates, and lawmakers have been shouting from the rooftops about the danger of sports betting marketing. To them, a lot of the tactics are not harmless marketing; they’re manipulative and harmful practices. The following are some of the perspectives and concerns from those who are on the front lines of gambling addiction.

The expert consensus is that most sportsbook marketing tactics cross an ethical line, especially regarding vulnerable users. Marketing is expected in any business, but the combo of a highly addictive product, sophisticated targeting, and inadequate oversight makes it a perfect storm for exploitation. Researchers and advocates are urging that we treat gambling advertising with the same skepticism and scrutiny as tobacco advertising, because the cost of doing nothing is measured in ruined finances, fractured families, and lives that are being put at risk.

Conclusion: Good Marketing or Manipulation Tactics?

The surge in sports betting has come with an onslaught of innovative marketing, and with that, a conundrum on what is acceptable advertising and what could be considered dangerous manipulation. 

Look below for a quick recap on what we covered:

• The sportsbook marketing arms race is happening in front of our eyes; companies deploy every trick in the book to bring in new biz. But those same tactics venture into predatory behavior, especially when it’s aimed at susceptible players.
• Patterns suggest that problem gamblers are the ones being targeted, not protected. High-risk bettors, aka big losers, self-excluded people, and young, inexperienced men, all tend to get more promos, when ethically they should get fewer or none. The contradiction is at the center of the concern.
• Regulation hasn’t caught up: Fast-paced innovation in data-driven marketing has outstripped the slow march of regulations. Loopholes mean that harmful practices make it through, and enforcement only comes only after the damage is already done.
• Pressure is mounting for change: From class-action lawsuits to government inquiries, there’s a growing push for transparency, stronger consumer protections, and accountable marketing. Measures like mandatory data sharing on problem gamblers, limits on bonus offers, and clearer, non-misleading advertising are all being called for.

Is sportsbook marketing “good fun” or a form of exploitation? That depends on where we draw the line. Right now, the balance seems to lean in favor of aggressive growth over caution. As bettors and as a society, recognizing the tactics is a must. The hope is that with greater awareness, better regulation, and a demand for accountability, sports betting can be enjoyed as entertainment without preying on those who are struggling to stop.