Man Sues DraftKings After Gambling Away His Wedding Funds.

[cryptomaniac_xxx]

I bet that if he had a big win after gambling away his entire wedding money, he wouldn't have sued that casino. We're tired of hearing about gamblers suing the casino they were playing at because they lost big and became addicted. This could have been avoided if they had controlled themselves and not gambled beyond their means.
Even though the gambler had been persuaded to self-exclude, he refused. From this, we see that gamblers are basically stubborn and don't listen to others, so why would he sue the casino when he was the one in the wrong from the start.

Yes, and this is also what I heard from inside the casinos, specially dealers. That is someone losses big money on their table, most of them curse and call them scammers.

But if they win big with them as dealers, they are given handsome tips because they believed that they are lucky with that dealers. So there will be always be two sides in any story. Unfortunately here though, it's the man who gambled all his wedding funds and so he believes that it was the casinos fault.

[junder]

this sounds like dystopia story to hear he saved 2m for wedding. However, i see no chance for him to win this case because the it's his responsibility to lost his money in casino. Even if he tries to sues the gambling site a hundred of times. I don't think he will win it.

When he gamble his money in casino, he agreed if he would not cry when he's losing. If he could limit himself from gambling whole of his money, this would not happen to him.

It's sad to see someone who lack of responsibility blame others over his fault.

Your statement is correct, however the man who has lost a lot of money or his marriage capital at one casino will not be able to return even if he sued the casino hundreds of times as you said.

This is a pretty big case in my opinion, and the man in my opinion should be ashamed of this incident which obviously happened because of his own actions not because the casino is to blame or prosecuted.

[stadus]

Yes, and this is also what I heard from inside the casinos, specially dealers. That is someone losses big money on their table, most of them curse and call them scammers.

But if they win big with them as dealers, they are given handsome tips because they believed that they are lucky with that dealers. So there will be always be two sides in any story. Unfortunately here though, it's the man who gambled all his wedding funds and so he believes that it was the casinos fault.

LOL, that was really a foolish move by the gambler. I think it is easier to make that kind of accusation against an online casino than a physical one, because in a physical casino it could damage the casino’s reputation and might also create a serious confrontation.

Making accusations without clear evidence is unfair. Some gamblers simply cannot accept that they made a bad decision or lost, so they blame other people instead.

I also find it strange when lawyers defend cases where the client appears to be clearly at fault, although I understand that everyone still has the right to legal representation.

[Betwrong]

A man in the US sues DraftKings (a sportsbook) after claiming that the sportsbook led him to gamble away millions of dollars. According to the article, the attorney the guy hired claims that the sportsbook VIP hosts bombarded the guy with calls, emails and other forms of communication, which contributed to his growing addiction, which ultimately led him to gamble the money he saved for his wedding and took out loans to feed his gambling addiction. ~

I think bombarding someone with calls and emails is unacceptable. I can't imagine what other methods of communication they were using, but the phone calls alone should be enough to get them sued. It's just my personal opinion, I'm not a lawyer and I know every state has it's own rules. I also know that it can not true, but if it is true - they must pay for that.

[Free Market Capitalist]

What's your view on this?

When I saw the title, I thought this was going to be yet another situation where some idiot gambles away his money and then plays the victim, blaming the casino, but in this case I see that, aside from personal responsibility—which certainly exists—the casino is also partly to blame. If what his lawyer says is true, it seems the casino's VIP hosts identified the guy as a “whale” to milk and did everything they could to get him to bet more and more. Without knowing more details about the case, it's hard to draw any conclusions; we'll see what happens at the trial.

[TopTort777]

How their defense line is going to build in court? Say that casino employee annoyed and forces to play? But that is childish. When registering at the casino I think everyone tick the line receive promotional stuff. I think everyone get email reminders and promotions from casino. Then all of us can try to sue casino for trying to get us into game.

[angrybirdy]

How their defense line is going to build in court? Say that casino employee annoyed and forces to play? But that is childish. When registering at the casino I think everyone tick the line receive promotional stuff. I think everyone get email reminders and promotions from casino. Then all of us can try to sue casino for trying to get us into game.

I am also curious in what angle they will actually take in court...
Just receiving promotional emails doesn't seem like it would be enough since thats pretty much expected after you sign up for an online casino websites/applications. Most people either agree to receive offers or can opt out later if they dont want them anymore. for me, the bigger issue would be whether the casino did something beyond regular advertising. If they ignored responsible gambling measures or kept pushing someone they knew was at risk,,I can see why that would get more attention? But if it's only about normal promotions, it seems like a difficult argument because every gambling site sends those kinds of offers to itsplayers.

[Taskford]

How their defense line is going to build in court? Say that casino employee annoyed and forces to play? But that is childish. When registering at the casino I think everyone tick the line receive promotional stuff. I think everyone get email reminders and promotions from casino. Then all of us can try to sue casino for trying to get us into game.

I think the defense chances is pretty low because the court might have an impression that his case is addiction and no one one force him to sign up, the user decline self exclusion and other more bad action which is self will.

But I hope to see some update with this case since somehow its interesting topic to follow. Knowing that we might see more cases like this will happen in future. For sure lots of people can't accept their losses will do the same action hoping they still have chance to recover their money.

[Ever-young]

How their defense line is going to build in court? Say that casino employee annoyed and forces to play? But that is childish. When registering at the casino I think everyone tick the line receive promotional stuff. I think everyone get email reminders and promotions from casino. Then all of us can try to sue casino for trying to get us into game.

Really childish indeed. Except the man wants to tell the court that the casino forced him against his wish to register, make the deposits and stake the games, but if that's not the case here, then I see no reason for wasting his time on a lawsuit for a case that lacks jurisdiction. Even the casinos advise gamblers to gamble responsibly, so if any gambler chooses not to and eventually gets into trouble, then it's totally on him.

[suzanne5223]

This is an example of what I said about gambling not being something for everyone because I can't accept the lame excuse provided by someone who was advised by his father to do self-exclusion from gambling but chose to ignore his father's advice, now blaming the gambling platform for his naive decision when the gambling platforms are doing their own marketing procedure.

I think we gamblers need to be responsible instead of shifting the blame of our addiction to the gambling platform when we ourselves have issues of stopping the game at the right time

I think the underlying issue here is not the fact that he is a gambling addict but that he is unwilling to take responsibility for his own actions. They say the first step to beating an addiction is to first accept that they have a gambling problem. In this case, it doesn’t seem to me like the young man has done any really self reflection and is trying to turn his life around.

Yes, you're right about what you said but the genesis of the whole thing is the gambler not knowing that gambling is not something for him because he didn't understand the concept of gambling before indulging in it, which is what i mean because there's no way someone who didn't understand the concept of gambling will take responsibility for his actions.

No matter how we look at it, if a gambling site allow highly addictive game's that we already know is ban in some places and regions or on some casinos, that will be a different ball game entirely and the gambler may have a case against the site, most especially now that in his law suite he mentioned the casino contacting via phones call repeatedly that if evidence for I a strong case to nail the casino and with a good lawyer he definitely have a good case.

I dont know if you're aware of this thread discussion, we believe will let you know that we can pinpoint the issue of self-exclusion of a gambler who later gambled on a casino because we dont know the states and that the gambler's self-exclusion in Illinois will reflect on.
This is why i believe relying on self-exclusion won't totally help addicted gamblers; moving out of the range of their self-exclusion will work.

[Hispo]

How their defense line is going to build in court? Say that casino employee annoyed and forces to play? But that is childish. When registering at the casino I think everyone tick the line receive promotional stuff. I think everyone get email reminders and promotions from casino. Then all of us can try to sue casino for trying to get us into game.

The defense will definitely try to prove the casino deliberately target thim because of the high volume of money he accumulated during his sessions on the casino, but that is going to be very difficult to prove.
In general, the defense will try to prove any targeted wrong doing against his specific gambler, something which the casino would have not done in the case of others.

It is going to be specially hard for him to get some of his money back in this civil lawsuit, there is no question about it. But he has lost so much money he probably believe it is going to be worth it in the end.
It is another case of the hope of the gambler.

[pawanjain]

Currently, the guy is still in recovery, has a job now, and is married and has a child with his wife.

What's your view on this?

Personally, I think the guy should be held accountable for his actions, but in the article, the sportsbook sounded like they were extremely aggressive in their promotion to this guy, I mean, getting bombarded by calls, emails, and other forms of communication is a bit excessive.

Obviously the guy is accountable for his gambling addiction. He was the one who was not able to control his gambling urges.
As a responsible gambler, its our duty to gamble within our limits and if we are crossing the limit then we have to face the consequences.
It's obvious that the gambling site marketing team will try their best to lure in users to gamble on their site.
But if we fall for their marketing gimmicks then we can't really blame them but ourselves.

[bakasabo]

Does anyone ever saw statistics of gambler vs casino court cases? I am curious how many times gambler has managed to win against casino in court. I think even in situations, where gambler was right, there are still good chances of him to lose in court. Casinos are too powerful and can have more ways to point where gambler did wrong or violate something, to turn case into «rules violation and ban». The person from first post has little chances of losing his case because he always had chances to refuse gambling and quit.

[Mayor of ogba]

There is no statement about how the case was settled in the content of the report, which I could have found very interesting to see how the judge handling the case ruled on it.

The guy might be the one making all the bets and spending the money, but we should not also undermine the role of some offers when it comes directly through phone calls on a regular basis.

Not everyone can be able to handle that, especially when the person is already on an addiction stage, so the sportsbook should take responsibility for some of his losses to some extent too.

I disagree with your belief, even though Draftkings sportsbook VIP hosts bombarded the guy with calls and emails, which led the guy to gamble away the money he saved up for his wedding, I don't think Draftkings should take responsibility for the guy losses because they don't force him to gamble, he gamble at his own will and lost his money, and had been he doubled his money there's no way he would had sued Draftkings so he should take responsible for his losses.

[Fiatless]

I think bombarding someone with calls and emails is unacceptable. I can't imagine what other methods of communication they were using, but the phone calls alone should be enough to get them sued. It's just my personal opinion, I'm not a lawyer and I know every state has it's own rules. I also know that it can not true, but if it is true - they must pay for that.

The calls and emails could be very offensive. Immediately, these casinos identify someone as a big spender; they might assign personal representatives to keep in contact with the person. But there is always an avenue to stop receiving these promotional messages. Their phone numbers and emails can be blocked to avoid further communication.

[Alpha Marine]

Are they going to punish a company for marketing its business? They probably did some research and figured out potential customers and marketed aggressively to those target audiences. There is no crime there. You may argue it's not ethical since they sought out the most vulnerable, but they didn't go against the law.
If he had self-excluded, and the casino still allowed him to gamble with them, then he would have had a better case, but he refused to self-exclude.

I believe the casino might settle out of court, because if it gets to court, cases like this, the company is usually seen as the bad guy before the case even starts. They are portrayed as the bad guys because they took advantage of a vulnerable person.
The judge and/or the jury (if there is one) is usually sympathetic to the victim and would demand some compensatory damages, and it may be more than the plaintiff originally demanded.
The only way the company will let it go to trial is if they have an air tight case.

[Youngrebel]

The calls and emails could be very offensive. Immediately, these casinos identify someone as a big spender; they might assign personal  representatives to keep in contact with the person. But there is always an avenue to stop receiving these promotional messages. Their phone numbers and emails can be blocked to avoid further communication.

That's right, I wonder why he didn't think of blocking them so they would not have access to reach him, perhaps he allowed it. I think casinos should stop being in contact with players just because they are big spenders, it seems like a desperate thing to do. I'm not a really a big spender but I have received some mails when I decided to stay off gambling for sometime and they kept on reminding me of bonus offers and things I'm missing out on. For experienced gamblers these calls and messages can simply be ignored.

[Pi-network314159]

A man in the US sues DraftKings (a sportsbook) after claiming that the sportsbook led him to gamble away millions of dollars. According to the article, the attorney the guy hired claims that the sportsbook VIP hosts bombarded the guy with calls, emails and other forms of communication, which contributed to his growing addiction, which ultimately led him to gamble the money he saved for his wedding and took out loans to feed his gambling addiction.

It's entirely the fault of the gambler, as we all know that gambling is by choice and not by force. There is no place in the article that stated that he was forced. Even though the casino agent bombarded him with call, but he still has the choice to say no,  but he chose to say yes  instead, and now he is addicted and find who to blame. We just need to be careful sometimes with the things we accept, because it might not affect us immediately but later.

[Jubilee58]

I think gamblers should be conscious enough to know when they are passing boundaries in the cause of gambling. This is exactly why we proclaim responsible gambling because addiction can be detrimental.
It is necessary to set limits, ensure proper bankroll, and make your gambling budget responsibly, and when you feel gambling is no longer favourable to you as expected, you can therefore apply for self exclusion. But when you fail to become disciplined as a gambler, you stand to face the outcome.

The gambling companies are their to make profit, and even when they know you are becoming more irresponsible in the way you gamble, they will never caution you. Is only in rare case that a gambling site will put you on self exclusion or try to give you a kind of caution signal.

In this case, I don't see Draft kings to be blame because if the man who lost money even meant for his welding had taken precautions, and gambled responsibly, I don't think he would have lost everything, and become a victim of this circumstance.

[Mayor of ogba]

The calls and emails could be very offensive. Immediately, these casinos identify someone as a big spender; they might assign personal representatives to keep in contact with the person. But there is always an avenue to stop receiving these promotional messages. Their phone numbers and emails can be blocked to avoid further communication.

If someone is shilling to me what I don't like, and I don't want to be receiving such thing, I will simply block all the means the person is using to reach out to me. But for him not to block the casino from calling and emailing him, he was very much okay with what the casino was doing in the first place, I believe he must have won big amount of money through that process and I also believe he is blaming Draftkings for his losses and demanding for damage so that his intended wife won't see him as gambling addict who blows away their wedding money, and leave him.