Online betting platform DraftKings upgraded a customer showing signs of gambling addiction to VIP status — he turned out to be a journalist conducting an investigation
ProPublica journalist Jake Pearson deliberately copied the behavior of a problem gambler on the DraftKings platform for ten weeks: he increased bets, tried to recover losses, regularly topped up his account, and spent a lot of time in the app. The experiment was funded by the editorial office, and Pearson himself honestly indicated during registration that he works as a journalist.
The result was unexpected: after just three weeks and $5.8 thousand deposited, DraftKings fully enrolled him in the VIP program and assigned a personal representative. Even after the journalist began using "responsible gaming" tools, the company continued to send promotional offers and bonuses.
ProPublica emphasizes: this is a journalistic experiment with one account, not a scientific study of DraftKings' entire customer base. But it vividly demonstrates the conflict that is increasingly discussed around online gambling: the operator simultaneously profits from customer activity and is supposed to notice signs of behavior that may indicate addiction.
The day after a sharp loss, an invitation to VIP arrived
Before the start of the experiment, Pearson consulted with gambling addiction specialists, people who had undergone recovery from problem gambling, and professional players.
He deliberately exhibited typical alarming signs — primarily attempts to immediately win back lost money with new and larger bets.
One evening, the journalist lost almost $1.8 thousand, continuing to increase bets after failures.
The very next day, DraftKings invited him to the so-called VIP Showcase — a three-week selection into the program for the most valuable customers.
Two weeks after that episode, and roughly three weeks after the start of active play, Pearson was officially accepted into the VIP program. By that point, about $5.8 thousand had been deposited through his account.
He was assigned a personal representative who was supposed to monitor special offers and bonuses available to the client.
The VIP program rewards the most active customers
VIP is an abbreviation for very important person, i.e. "especially important client". In the betting industry, such programs operate on the principle of loyalty programs of airlines or banks: the more active the client, the more privileges they can receive.
DraftKings offers participants free bets, bonus funds, enhanced odds, merchandise, and other benefits.
The program has several levels. As activity grows, the client accumulates points and moves up.
It was this structure that interested ProPublica: behavior that specialists considered signs of problem gambling simultaneously helped the journalist become a more valuable client of the platform faster.
Over ten weeks, the company sent 32 messages about responsible gaming
It cannot be said that DraftKings completely ignored the account's behavior.
According to the company itself, over ten weeks Pearson received 32 notifications related to responsible gaming, including messages sent to all users.
The journalist calculated that special notifications directly inside the app appeared on approximately 14 of the 71 days when he placed bets.
DraftKings also provides tools that allow limiting time spent in the app, deposit amounts, or completely suspending play.
The company claims that its employees monitor more than two dozen indicators of potentially risky behavior and in some cases manually review accounts or even close them.
However, throughout the entire experiment, Pearson did not receive a direct outreach from the responsible gaming team.
After losses of about $12.5 thousand, the journalist set limits himself
At the most difficult moment of the experiment, Pearson approached losses of $4.5 thousand in one day.
By that time, the total amount of money that he described as spent on DraftKings had reached about $12.5 thousand.
The app showed him a message offering to take a break. After that, the journalist independently set a limit: no more than two hours of play per day and no more than $100 in new deposits per 24 hours.
But about half an hour later, the first of four promotional push notifications from DraftKings that day arrived on his phone with new offers to place bets.
It was this episode that became one of the central points in ProPublica's investigation: mechanisms designed to slow down play existed simultaneously with a marketing system interested in bringing the client back to betting.
After the pause, the VIP representative added a $1.25 thousand bonus to the new deposit
Later, Pearson used a three-day pause — another responsible gaming tool.
Less than a week after returning, he contacted his VIP representative and asked about a bonus for a large account top-up.
When the journalist announced an intention to deposit $5 thousand, the representative provided him with an additional $1.25 thousand in DraftKings bonus funds.
DraftKings' chief responsible gaming specialist Lori Kalani told ProPublica that she did not see this as a violation: the initiator of the contact after the pause was the client himself, and such an offer was available to VIP users.
According to her, in Pearson's case, "the system worked as it should": his behavior did not reach thresholds that trigger account closure or mandatory manual review.
DraftKings disputes the conclusion about a conflict between profit and player protection
The company rejects the assumption that responsible gaming is a mere formality.
DraftKings states that more than 5,000 employees undergo relevant training annually, and customer protection is built into the company's business and matters for its long-term sustainability.
On its official website, the operator recommends that users set budget and time limits in advance, not try to recoup losses, and use the self-exclusion feature if play gets out of control.
The company also claims that it monitors customer behavior and can intervene if it notices sufficiently serious signs of risk.
However, DraftKings did not tell ProPublica how often such checks end in forced account closures.
For comparison, the journalist repeated the behavior on FanDuel
To understand whether the result is a feature of DraftKings, Pearson spent a week repeating part of the same behavior pattern on the competing platform FanDuel.
He again made large and frequent bets and tried to recoup losses.
During that week, FanDuel did not invite the journalist to its VIP program. The app also showed him Reality Check notifications several times with information about the duration of the gaming session and the total amount of bets.
At the same time, FanDuel also did not disclose to ProPublica the exact conditions under which the company restricts or excludes a client due to the risk of problem gambling.
Therefore, comparing the two accounts cannot be taken as a systematic safety rating of operators. It only shows the differences that the journalist saw in two specific cases.
The experiment ended with a net loss of over $10 thousand
By the end of the ten-week experiment, the journalist's net losses amounted to $10,702. He withdrew the remaining balance and returned it to ProPublica.
Before completing the check, Pearson decided to test the limits of the VIP program once more and asked his personal representative about a possible bonus for a hypothetical deposit of $25 thousand.
The representative did not refuse automatically, but replied that after funds are deposited, he would be able to check what offers are available to the account.
Pearson himself did not make such a deposit.
The problem is broader than one account
The ProPublica experiment came amid a wider discussion about how betting apps use customer data.
A week before the investigation was published, The New York Times reported, citing former employees and internal documents, that DraftKings used machine learning to identify customers who react more strongly to advertising stimuli and potentially bring the company more money after receiving bonuses.
DraftKings rejected the suggestion that the company improperly targets marketing at vulnerable players and stated that promotions are intended for the most active users.
Meanwhile, the market continues to grow. After the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2018 that allowed states to independently legalize sports betting, Americans have bet more than $600 billion through regulated platforms.
Against this backdrop, the question is gradually changing: it is no longer just about the presence of a "set limit" button, but whether the operator can recognize problem behavior earlier than the client himself — and whether it is really ready to stop a person who simultaneously brings it significant revenue.
The ProPublica story does not provide a statistical answer for millions of DraftKings users. But that is precisely what makes the experiment valuable: the journalist deliberately created a set of red flags that specialists associate with problem gambling and tested whether it would lead to account restrictions.
Instead, after three weeks, he received VIP status.
Based on materials from: ProPublica, DraftKings, The New York Times.
