4 ms·

>Also, online providers maintain lists of self-excluded people with state regulators (to be clear, the state holds the list, people put themselves on the list a

>Also, online providers maintain lists of self-excluded people with state regulators (to be clear, the state holds the list, people put themselves on the list and are banned everywhere). There's and ongoing lawsuit alleging sports betting platforms sent promotions targeted to users on the exclusion list to encourage a relapse in their gambling addiction. https://www.espn.com/espn/betting/story/_/id/44520842/baltimore-sues-draftkings-fanduel-alleging-misleading-tactics https://www.espn.com/espn/betting/story/_/id/44520842/baltim...

gruez 1y ago
>There's and ongoing lawsuit alleging sports betting platforms sent promotions targeted to users on the exclusion list to encourage a relapse in their gambling addiction. >https://www.espn.com/espn/betting/story/_/id/44520842/baltim https://www.espn.com/espn/betting/story/_/id/44520842/baltim... Your linked article doesn't say anything about that claim?
skippyboxedhero 1y ago
No, that lawsuit doesn't allege that, as the article explains. Self-exclusion lists are not maintained by gambling companies, so there is no way to market to them (and also, the lawsuit is being brought by a city...not an authority responsible for regulation). Just generally, there is no upside to doing this either. It makes literally zero sense if you apply rational thought. What the lawsuit alleges is that at-risk users with promotions. This is undoubtedly true because people who have gambling addictions use gambling products and there is no way to identify someone with a gambling addiction prior to them using the product (contrary to what the article says, there is no way for companies to identify these users either, there are multiple third-party vendors in the industry who claim to have developed ML models to identify at-risk behaviour...none of them work). The lawsuit does not identify whether these users opted-out of promotions (every regulated provider has this option...if you don't want these promos, just turn them off). And does not identify what aspect of existing regulation is insufficient (as I just explained, if you are a gambling addict, you have the option of being unable to open an account at any regulated provider). In other words, this is the equivalent of Baltimore suing Budweiser because alcoholics drink their beer. It misunderstands at a very fundamental level how society should operate and tells you everything about US society where companies are expected to have a social role (and btw, what is most odd about this is that MD has a state gambling regulator, Baltimore is complaining about things that government already has the power to fix...I suspect the issue is that this revenue source is not being distributed their way, govt officials need to eat too).

gruez 1y ago

>There's and ongoing lawsuit alleging sports betting platforms sent promotions targeted to users on the exclusion list to encourage a relapse in their gambling addiction. >https://www.espn.com/espn/betting/story/_/id/44520842/baltim https://www.espn.com/espn/betting/story/_/id/44520842/baltim... Your linked article doesn't say anything about that claim?

skippyboxedhero 1y ago

No, that lawsuit doesn't allege that, as the article explains. Self-exclusion lists are not maintained by gambling companies, so there is no way to market to them (and also, the lawsuit is being brought by a city...not an authority responsible for regulation). Just generally, there is no upside to doing this either. It makes literally zero sense if you apply rational thought. What the lawsuit alleges is that at-risk users with promotions. This is undoubtedly true because people who have gambling addictions use gambling products and there is no way to identify someone with a gambling addiction prior to them using the product (contrary to what the article says, there is no way for companies to identify these users either, there are multiple third-party vendors in the industry who claim to have developed ML models to identify at-risk behaviour...none of them work). The lawsuit does not identify whether these users opted-out of promotions (every regulated provider has this option...if you don't want these promos, just turn them off). And does not identify what aspect of existing regulation is insufficient (as I just explained, if you are a gambling addict, you have the option of being unable to open an account at any regulated provider). In other words, this is the equivalent of Baltimore suing Budweiser because alcoholics drink their beer. It misunderstands at a very fundamental level how society should operate and tells you everything about US society where companies are expected to have a social role (and btw, what is most odd about this is that MD has a state gambling regulator, Baltimore is complaining about things that government already has the power to fix...I suspect the issue is that this revenue source is not being distributed their way, govt officials need to eat too).