A federal lawsuit in the US accuses online gambling firms of orchestrating illicit wagering schemes that flout the laws of multiple states.
A federal lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has accused a trio of online gambling firms of orchestrating illicit wagering schemes that allegedly flout the laws of multiple states.
The complaint was brought by Mark T. Lavery, an Illinois resident and self-described “bounty hunter” of gambling statutes.
He claims that Third Planet Media LLC, Novig Sweeps LLC, and Dabble Sports LLC targeted gamblers across Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts, Kentucky, and Texas through websites including Props.com, Novig.us, and Dabble.com.
Lavery’s complaint identifies Third Planet as an entity led by Cal Spears, Adam Small, and Brett Smiley, with Novig Sweeps based in New York and Dabble Sports headquartered in Texas.
None are Illinois citizens, a key detail establishing federal diversity jurisdiction.
The case exemplifies the growing clash between evolving technology and the jurisdictional limits of state and federal gambling regulations.
Lavery argues that venue is proper in Cook County, Illinois, due to what his allegations describe as the operation of geofenced virtual gambling halls targeting local bettors, including offers of bonuses and promotional codes for site sign-ups.
Central to Lavery’s claim is the accusation that the defendants established a combination, a legal term denoting a collaborative effort to promote gambling and maintain illicit betting operations.
Lavery’s legal theory draws from the Statute of Anne, nuisance law, and state-level false claims acts, positioning himself as a bounty hunter empowered to recover penalties from illicit operators.
The Statute of Anne was an 18th-century English law that allowed gamblers who lost money illegally to sue the winner to recover those losses.
It also permitted third parties to file suit if the gambler failed to act within a set period. The statute later influenced similar gambling-loss recovery laws adopted in several US states.
Third Planet offered no comment when contacted by Next.io.
Prop bets, exchange wagering, and regulatory arbitrage
Lavery claims to be a pioneer in challenging so-called “player prop” betting platforms masquerading as fantasy sports, referencing previous enforcement actions and recoveries.
The complaint paints a broad picture of contemporary online wagering, criticising the defendants for allegedly promoting player prop betting and exchange wagering under the guise of sweepstakes or commodity trading certifications.
Specifically, Lavery cites promotional materials describing “Pick Em” style games and exchange markets designed to mimic legitimate betting but evade regulatory oversight and tax obligations.
The complaint seeks civil penalties under the gambling loss recovery laws of Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts, Kentucky, and Texas, including statutory treble damages.
Lavery also requests an injunction against continued use of the alleged illegal online gambling activity, as well as attorney’s fees and costs.
The lawsuit alleges that thousands of gamblers have lost significant amounts to the challenged schemes and suggests the case could set precedents for the enforcement of state laws against sophisticated online wagering networks.
If successful, the litigation could have ramifications for the expanding world of online gambling, particularly for fantasy sports and exchange wagering platforms that rely on regulatory ambiguities to reach customers across state lines.