DraftKings and FanDuel Omit Gambling Addiction Tools From Prediction Market Apps

DraftKings, FanDuel, and Fanatics launched prediction market apps last month without the gambling addiction resources their sportsbooks have carried for years.

The standalone platforms let users set betting limits and lock accounts. But three features that are standard on state-licensed sportsbooks were missing at launch: addiction hotlines, session time tracking, and detailed betting history visualizations.

The omission looks deliberate. By calling prediction markets a "financial asset" rather than gambling, operators gain access to federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission jurisdiction and avoid state gaming taxes. A full suite of anti-addiction tools could weaken that legal argument.

Inside the apps, DraftKings, FanDuel, and Fanatics avoid the words "gambling," "gaming," and "betting" entirely. Users "trade" event contracts. They do not place wagers.

FanDuel added a support hotline to its website's fine print and to the app after Sportico reported on the gap. A spokesperson said the company remains "committed to responsible trading."

For years, these same operators pointed to their responsible gambling tools as proof that legal sports betting was safer than offshore alternatives. The partnerships with the National Council on Problem Gambling, the hotline numbers read aloud in podcast ads, the prominent "Play Responsibly" messaging: all were framed as moral commitments rather than regulatory requirements.

Kalshi and Novig, which operate under different regulatory frameworks, have similarly sparse addiction resources. Novig directs users to a video game addiction group rather than gambling support services.

Caesars and MGM have not entered prediction markets. Both companies run large Las Vegas casino operations, and Nevada regulators have taken a harder line against event contracts than any other state.

The responsible gambling gap adds another dimension to the legal battle over prediction markets. Thirty states have filed amicus briefs arguing these products should be regulated as gambling. Whether the platforms' own design choices support that argument may matter when courts weigh in.