FTC reportedly reviewing FanDuel, DraftKings over betting practices

Dig Deeper

The Backstory

Sports betting’s federal moment has been building

The reported Federal Trade Commission review of DraftKings, FanDuel and other online sportsbooks would mark a new phase for a business that has largely been governed state by state since the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door to legal sports wagering in 2018. State regulators built the market, licensed operators and enforced local rules. But the consumer questions now drawing attention — advertising, VIP treatment, inducements and the use of customer data — are national in scale.

That shift explains why a preliminary federal review matters even before it becomes a formal investigation. DraftKings and FanDuel dominate U.S. online sports betting, giving their promotional practices broad reach. Allegations that operators used personalized offers, celebrity access or artificial intelligence to keep high-value or losing customers engaged go beyond ordinary disputes over odds or account limits. They speak to whether the industry’s growth model depends on identifying vulnerable customers and intensifying their play.

The FTC’s consumer protection mandate puts it in a different position from state gambling agencies. State regulators generally focus on licensing, integrity, technical compliance and responsible gaming rules within their borders. The FTC can examine whether marketing is deceptive or unfair across jurisdictions. If it finds grounds to act, the consequences could reshape how sportsbooks segment customers, write promotional copy, deploy algorithms and manage VIP accounts.

Prediction markets added pressure to an already unsettled system

The federal scrutiny comes as the boundary between sports betting and financial-style event contracts is under pressure. Prediction markets have argued that their sports contracts fall under federal commodities law, not state gambling rules. That position has allowed companies such as Kalshi and Polymarket to challenge the traditional sportsbook model, which requires licenses in each state where bets are offered.

The divide has become more visible as leagues and regulators take opposing views. The NHL recently signed multi-year partnerships with Kalshi and Polymarket, giving the prediction markets access to league branding and exposure during marquee broadcasts. The deals underscored how quickly the category has moved into mainstream sports, even as the American Gaming Association and state regulators argue the products resemble wagers and should be regulated as such.

In New Jersey, a closely watched case over Kalshi’s sports offerings has shown why incumbents and regulators are watching the federal courts. A Jefferies analyst said the litigation could become a win-win for DraftKings and FanDuel if it brings clearer rules, even if Kalshi prevails in part. For established sportsbooks, uncertainty is costly. If prediction markets can offer similar products under a federal regime while sportsbooks remain bound by state licensing, tax and responsible gaming requirements, the competitive balance changes.

That context helps frame why the reported FTC review appears focused on sportsbooks rather than prediction markets. The immediate issue is not whether sports event contracts are lawful financial instruments. It is whether licensed betting operators have marketed and managed customers in ways that misled consumers or exploited known vulnerabilities. Still, the two debates are connected: both ask which federal agencies should police products that look and function like bets.

Micro bets sharpen concerns about speed, volume and control

The sports betting product itself has also changed. Early legalization focused on pregame wagers and familiar markets such as point spreads, totals and money lines. Operators have since expanded aggressively into live betting, same-game parlays and micro bets that allow customers to wager on discrete events that resolve within minutes or seconds.

That expansion has raised integrity and addiction concerns. In Maryland, House Republican leader Jason Buckel called for lawmakers to reconsider whether sportsbooks should be allowed to offer micro bets after recent scandals involving professional athletes and alleged manipulation of individual plays. His comments reflected a wider concern that every pitch, pass or possession can be turned into a betting event, increasing both the number of wagering opportunities and the pressure on players and officials.

The issue is not limited to one state. Congress has also shown interest in micro bets, with critics arguing that high-frequency betting creates a more compulsive product than traditional sports wagers. A bet that settles quickly can immediately lead to another, compressing the cycle of risk and reward. If an operator’s marketing systems also identify customers who respond to losses with more deposits or larger wagers, the consumer protection stakes rise.

For the FTC, that product evolution is relevant because advertising and interface design are part of the consumer experience. Promotions that might appear harmless when tied to a weekly football wager can look different when paired with in-game offers, instant deposits and rapid-fire markets. The faster the product, the more important disclosures, limits and intervention tools become.

Other markets show the risks of blunt regulation

The U.S. is not the only market struggling with the consequences of rapid online betting growth. International examples show two competing risks: allowing aggressive legal operators to expand without sufficient safeguards or restricting them so sharply that consumers migrate to unlicensed sites.

Brazil offers one version of the dilemma. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva signed a provisional measure to ban sports betting and online casino gaming, reversing a regulated model that had only recently become fully operational. The measure blocks new deposits and bets, winds down authorized platforms and bars betting advertising and sponsorship. Industry groups warned the ban could push tens of millions of bettors toward illegal operators, a concern heightened by Brazil’s existing struggle to block unauthorized domains.

The Philippines debate illustrates a narrower version of the same policy tension. A proposed total gambling advertising ban has been criticized as likely to hand market share back to illegal operators by silencing licensed brands while offshore sites continue to advertise through informal digital channels. The analysis argued that advertising restrictions can protect consumers only if they distinguish between licensed and illegal operators and preserve a way for customers to identify regulated platforms.

Those examples do not dictate the U.S. answer. The American market is larger, more fragmented and more mature in sports betting than many jurisdictions. But they show why federal intervention is likely to focus first on conduct rather than prohibition. A crackdown on deceptive promotions, VIP inducements or misuse of data could tighten standards without driving legal operators out of public view.

What is at stake for DraftKings, FanDuel and regulators

DraftKings and FanDuel built their lead through technology, brand spending and nationwide scale. That scale is now a liability as well as an advantage. Practices that might have drawn limited state-level attention when conducted by a smaller operator can become national consumer protection issues when used by market leaders with millions of accounts.

The reported FTC review also raises the prospect of federal standards that could influence the entire sector. Operators may face pressure to document how they identify problem gambling risk, how VIP hosts are compensated, how promotions are targeted and whether algorithms are designed to reduce harm or maximize losses. Even absent enforcement, the review could push companies to revise advertising language, restrict personalized offers and create stronger internal controls around high-risk customers.

For state regulators, federal involvement could be both helpful and disruptive. It may provide tools to police conduct that crosses state lines and depends on centralized data systems. But it also could expose gaps in a regulatory model built around licenses, audits and product approvals rather than broader consumer law theories.

The industry’s next stage may be defined less by legalization than by legitimacy. Sportsbooks, prediction markets, leagues and regulators are all competing to shape what legal betting should look like after the first growth wave. The FTC’s reported review places consumer protection at the center of that fight and signals that national scale may now bring national scrutiny.