DraftKings is facing fresh scrutiny after a September 19, 2026 investigation by The New York Times examined how the sportsbook used machine learning to decide which customers should receive promotional incentives. The report was based on interviews with more than 40 former employees and internal documents.
What the investigation says
The Times reported that DraftKings built a model in 2023 using customer betting records to estimate who was more likely to respond to promotions and lose money. The model considered betting frequency, balances, losses and other behavioral data.
Why the targeting matters
The central issue is the difference between predicting commercial response and identifying gambling risk. The investigation reported that some former employees believed the same customer data could also be used to identify people at risk of gambling problems.
What happened with responsible-gaming models?
The Times reported that employees developed models intended to predict when a customer might need an intervention, but former employees said those efforts were later stopped or sidelined. Those are reported accounts from former employees, not an independent finding that DraftKings violated a law.
DraftKings and responsible gaming
The report lands shortly after DraftKings announced new responsible-engagement measures, including custom cool-off periods of three to 364 days and Gamalyze American Football. That contrast makes the company's use of customer data an important part of the current sports-betting discussion.
What customers should know
Promotions can be personalized, so customers should read the terms of incentives and understand their own limits. DraftKings also provides responsible-gaming controls for customers who want to pause or manage activity.
Related: DraftKings responsible gaming tools · DraftKings prediction markets.
FAQ
Did DraftKings use AI to target customers?
The New York Times reported that DraftKings used machine-learning models to guide promotional targeting.
Did the report prove illegal conduct?
No. It describes internal practices and former employees' concerns; legal liability is a separate question requiring regulatory or judicial findings.
Source: The New York Times, September 19, 2026.
