for early access to the latest igaming videos!
and get the latest igaming news first!
A new federal lawsuit out of Illinois is turning heads, not because of the companies involved, but because of the man bringing the case, and the law he’s using.
Mark T. Lavery, who openly calls himself a “bounty hunter” of gambling statutes, has dusted off a centuries-old rule to challenge three modern online gambling firms.
The complaint, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleges that Third Planet Media, Novig Sweeps and Dabble Sports built sophisticated wagering operations that reached players across multiple states.
A centuries-old law meets modern online betting
At the centre of Lavery’s argument is the Statute of Anne, an 18th-century English law designed to let people recover losses from illegal gambling. The law also allowed a third party to file the lawsuit if the gambler did not act quickly.
Versions of this concept later shaped several US state laws, and Lavery is now using those rules to pursue civil penalties on behalf of players.
It’s an unusual combination: historic gambling-loss recovery rules mixed with the very modern world of props, pick-em games and exchange-style betting.
How the lawsuit describes the companies
Lavery claims the operators targeted players in Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts, Kentucky and Texas through gambling-style websites including Props.com, Novig.us and Dabble.com.
According to the complaint:
- third Planet Media is linked to well-known industry figures Cal Spears, Adam Small and Brett Smiley
- Novig Sweeps is based in New York
- Dabble Sports is based in Texas
None of the companies are Illinois citizens, which helps establish federal jurisdiction.
What Lavery says went wrong
He argues that the companies created what he calls “virtual gambling halls,” using geolocation, promo codes and sign-up bonuses to reach players in states where they should not have been operating.
He also claims:
- “Pick Em” fantasy games were actually disguised player props
- exchange-style markets mimicked real sports betting
- some products were marketed as sweepstakes or commodity-style trading to avoid regulation
- the companies designed systems that sidestepped state licensing and tax requirements
In short, he says these platforms blurred the lines between fantasy sports and real wagering in a way that state laws do not allow.
What the lawsuit asks for
Lavery is seeking:
- civil penalties under gambling-loss recovery laws
- treble damages where permitted
- a court order stopping the companies from continuing the alleged behaviour
- legal fees and costs
He claims thousands of players have lost money through these systems and that the case could force clearer boundaries on the fast-growing betting and fantasy crossover space.
Why this case matters
The lawsuit arrives at a moment when US gambling regulation is struggling to keep up with rapid product innovation. Pick-em games, fantasy sports crossovers and peer-to-peer markets are expanding faster than state laws can adjust.
Lavery’s case asks a simple but powerful question: what happens when old gambling laws collide with new gambling technology?
If he succeeds, the impact could reach far beyond these three companies. It could reshape how fantasy operators, exchange platforms and sweepstakes-style betting sites operate across state lines.
For now, the case moves into early litigation, and the industry is watching closely to see whether a legal tool from the 1700s is about to change the rules of modern online wagering.
Source: NEXT.io
