In December 2025, a federal lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, spearheaded by Mark T. Lavery, a self-proclaimed “bounty hunter” of gambling statutes. This lawsuit raises eyebrows not only because of the companies involved but due to the archaic legal foundation Lavery is utilizing: the Statute of Anne from the 18th century. The complaint targets three online gambling firms—Third Planet Media, Novig Sweeps, and Dabble Sports—accusing them of running intricate wagering operations that reached players across multiple states, including Illinois.
The Statute of Anne, an English law from 1710, allowed individuals to reclaim losses from illegal gambling and permitted third parties to initiate lawsuits if the gambler themselves did not act swiftly. Lavery taps into this relic of legal history to seek civil penalties on behalf of players, an unusual juxtaposition of historic gambling-loss recovery rules with the digital world of pick-em games and exchange-style betting.
The lawsuit specifically claims that these companies targeted players in Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts, Kentucky, and Texas, using platforms such as Props.com, Novig.us, and Dabble.com. Notably, Third Planet Media has ties to industry figures like Cal Spears, Adam Small, and Brett Smiley, Novig Sweeps operates out of New York, and Dabble Sports is based in Texas. The lack of Illinois citizenship among these companies allows the case to be heard in federal court.
Lavery asserts that the operators have created “virtual gambling halls” by leveraging geolocation technology, promo codes, and sign-up bonuses to lure players in states where they should not have been operating. He alleges that “Pick Em” fantasy games were masquerading as player props, exchange-style markets mirrored actual sports betting, and certain products were marketed as sweepstakes or commodity-style trading to sidestep regulations. Essentially, these platforms allegedly blurred the lines between fantasy sports and real wagering in ways that contravene state laws.
The lawsuit seeks civil penalties under gambling-loss recovery statutes, treble damages where applicable, a court order to halt the alleged activities, and coverage of legal fees and costs. Lavery claims that thousands of players have incurred losses due to these systems and hopes the case will establish clearer boundaries in the burgeoning betting and fantasy crossover market.
This legal action comes at a pivotal time when US gambling regulations are grappling to keep pace with rapid technological advancements and innovative betting products. As pick-em games, fantasy sports crossovers, and peer-to-peer markets continue to expand, state laws are lagging behind. Lavery’s case poses a fundamental challenge: what occurs when antiquated gambling laws intersect with contemporary gambling technologies?
While the case is in its nascent stage of litigation, its outcome could have significant implications beyond these three companies. A successful case could potentially redefine operational standards for fantasy operators, exchange platforms, and sweepstakes-style betting sites across state lines. The industry watches with bated breath to see if a legal instrument from the 1700s will indeed transform the landscape of modern online wagering.
Critics, however, argue that relying on such an ancient statute to regulate modern digital platforms might be overly ambitious. They point out the complexities of applying 18th-century law to 21st-century technology, suggesting that new regulations might be more effective than trying to retroactively fit old laws to new issues. Nonetheless, this case underscores the urgent need for contemporary legal frameworks that can address the unique challenges posed by the rapidly evolving igaming industry.
As legal experts and industry stakeholders analyze the potential ramifications, the case could set a precedent for how historical legal principles are applied in today’s digital age. Whether Lavery’s approach will succeed remains uncertain, but what is clear is the growing necessity for a cohesive regulatory structure that can balance innovation with consumer protection.
In conclusion, this lawsuit not only highlights regulatory gaps in the US gambling sector but also serves as a reminder of the ongoing tension between legal tradition and technological progress. As the court proceedings unfold, the decision will likely resonate throughout the industry, potentially shaping the future of online gambling operations in the US.
James Miller is a distinguished casino strategy expert with a wealth of experience in the gambling world. At CasinoNoDeposits.com, James focuses on crafting effective gaming strategies and providing insightful reviews to guide players towards making informed decisions. His deep understanding of casino mechanics and promotional offers makes him a valuable asset to the team. Dedicated to educating players, James ensures that every piece of content is accurate, actionable, and reader-friendly.
4.1/5Disco Win Casino
NDB: 15 Euros
