{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-12T07:57:50.490Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"para","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2017","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":2,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2017-mobley-v-workday-ai-applicant-screening-job-rejections-discrimination-lawsuit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 1: 'brings this action for employment discrimination against Workday, Inc.'; 'algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminated against him and other similarly situated job applicants on the basis of race, age, and disability'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A job applicant brought an employment discrimination action against Workday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that its algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminated against him and other applicants on the basis of race, age and disability.","causal_attribution":"The order establishes that the action exists and what it alleges. It does not establish that the allegations are true."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Pages 2-3: 'Mobley has allegedly applied to over 100 positions with companies that use Workday'; 'screening tools for talent acquisition and hiring since 2017'; 'Mobley was allegedly denied employment for every one of the'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff alleges that since 2017 he applied to more than 100 positions with companies that use Workday's screening tools and was denied employment on every one.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegation as recited by the court on a motion to dismiss. It is not a finding."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 3: 'his application was rejected less than an hour later'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff alleges that one application, submitted at 12:55 a.m., was rejected less than an hour later.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegation as recited by the court. The plaintiffs argue that the timing indicates automated screening, and no finding has been made."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 2: 'enabling these applications to make hiring decisions'; 'employer should accept or reject an application'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff alleges that Workday's tools embed AI and machine learning and determine whether an employer should accept or reject an application.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegation as recited by the court. Workday disputes that its tools make hiring decisions."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The motion to dismiss the disparate impact claims under Title VII, the ADEA, and the'; 'ADA is therefore denied'; 'intentionally discriminated against him based on race and age'; 'Document 80 Filed 07/12/24'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 12 July 2024 the court granted Workday's motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part: the disparate-impact claims proceed and the claims of intentional discrimination were dismissed.","causal_attribution":"The court's own ruling on the pleadings. It decides whether the claims may proceed and makes no finding of discrimination."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 1: 'motion for preliminary certification of the collective is GRANTED'; 'Mobley is joined by four other plaintiffs over the age of forty'; 'Document 128'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 16 May 2025 the court granted preliminary certification of a collective on the age-discrimination claim, and four other plaintiffs over forty had joined the named plaintiff.","causal_attribution":"The court's own procedural ruling, which the order says can be revisited after discovery. It makes no finding of discrimination."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 1: 'who allege that they too have applied for hundreds of jobs via Workday and have been rejected almost every time without an interview'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The four further plaintiffs allege that they applied for hundreds of jobs via Workday and were rejected almost every time without an interview.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs' allegations as recited by the court. They attribute the rejections to age discrimination in the recommendation system, which is not established."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'the plaintiffs filed their class-certification request on September 14 in federal court in San Francisco'; 'Workday has denied wrongdoing, saying its AI tools evaluate job qualifications rather than protected characteristics'; 'its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed, and rejected'; 'A hearing on whether the case can proceed as a class action is scheduled for March 9, 2027'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Black Information Network, citing Reuters, reported on 24 September 2026 that the plaintiffs filed a class-certification request on 14 September, that Workday denies wrongdoing and says its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed and rejected, and that a hearing is scheduled for 9 March 2027.","causal_attribution":"A relay of Reuters reporting. The motion and the Reuters article were not read."}],"effects":[{"label":"denied employment on every one of more than 100 applications to companies using Workday's screening tools (plaintiff's allegation)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"four further plaintiffs over forty rejected almost every time without an interview (their allegation, as recited by the court)","claim_id":"c7","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.408645/gov.uscourts.cand.408645.80.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English: the 20-page order of 12 July 2024 as text extracted from the PDF.","independence_group":"mobley-v-workday-court-record"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.408645/gov.uscourts.cand.408645.128.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English: the 20-page order of 16 May 2025 as text extracted from the PDF.","independence_group":"mobley-v-workday-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.binnews.com/alternate/amp/2026-09-24-black-job-seekers-allege-workdays-ai-hiring-tools-discriminate-seek-class-action/","kind":"news_relay","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English. The article attributes its account to Reuters, whose article was not read.","independence_group":"reuters-workday-class-certification-2026-09"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["Whether Workday's tools, the employers' own settings or human reviewers produced each rejection.","Which employers were involved beyond those named in the order, and the dates of the individual applications.","The contents of the September 2026 class-certification motion and of the Reuters article, neither of which was read.","The outcome of the case on the merits."],"geography":{"basis":"The case is in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, and the 2025 order describes the proposed group as a 'nationwide collective' under US federal employment statutes, which places the applications in the United States. The plaintiffs' places of residence were not read in the passages inspected.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete, court-documented allegation that an AI applicant-screening system repeatedly rejected a named job applicant. The existence of the suit and two rulings are established by the court's orders. The rejections and the role of the tools are the plaintiffs' allegations, which Workday denies and no court has decided.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-05"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The plaintiffs allege that Workday's AI-based screening and recommendation tools decided or recommended the rejection of their applications. The court's orders recite those allegations and found the disparate-impact claims plausibly pleaded. The 2025 order quotes Workday's discovery statement that its Candidate Skills Match tool 'utilizes artificial intelligence' and that customers choose whether to turn it on. Workday says its tools evaluate qualifications and that its customers control rejections. Whether an automated tool made any particular rejection is not established.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Job applicant alleges Workday's AI applicant-screening tools rejected more than 100 of his applications on the basis of race, age and disability; a US federal court let disparate-impact claims proceed and preliminarily certified an age-discrimination collective","summary":"Derek Mobley sued Workday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the company's algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminated against him and other job applicants on the basis of race, age and disability. According to the court's summary of the complaint, Mobley alleges that since 2017 he applied to more than 100 positions with companies that use Workday's screening tools and was denied employment on every one, in one instance less than an hour after applying at 12:55 a.m. On 12 July 2024 the court dismissed the claims of intentional discrimination and allowed the disparate-impact claims to proceed. On 16 May 2025 it granted preliminary certification of a collective on the age-discrimination claim, by which time four further plaintiffs over forty had joined. The Black Information Network, citing Reuters, reported on 24 September 2026 that the plaintiffs had asked the court to certify a class action and that a hearing is set for 9 March 2027. Workday denies wrongdoing and says its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed and rejected. No court has ruled on whether the tools discriminated.","incidentDate":"2017-01-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","aiSystem":"Workday's applicant screening tools on its job-application platform, which the court's orders describe from the complaint as 'algorithm-based applicant screening tools' (2024) and an AI-based 'applicant recommendation system' (2025). The plaintiffs allege the tools score, sort, rank or screen applicants. Workday says its AI tools evaluate job qualifications and that its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed and rejected (as relayed from Reuters). The 2025 order names two tools discussed in the certification briefing: Candidate Skills Match, which Workday said in discovery 'utilizes artificial intelligence' to compare a job posting with an application within its Workday Recruiting service and which customers can turn on or off, and Workday Assessment Connector, which is alleged to use machine learning","aiProduct":"Workday applicant screening tools","aiCompany":"Workday","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The named plaintiff alleges that he was denied employment on every one of more than 100 applications made since 2017 to companies using Workday's screening tools and that the tools discriminated by race, age and disability. Four further plaintiffs over forty allege repeated rejections without an interview. Workday denies wrongdoing, and no court has ruled on the merits.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":5,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Five plaintiffs who allege rejections: the named plaintiff and the four opt-in plaintiffs whose declarations the court's 16 May 2025 order describes ('four other plaintiffs over the age of forty'; each 'alleges that they received at least one \"automated\" rejection email'). People who may opt in to the collective are not counted. The count records people who report harm and does not establish that the tools caused it.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.408645/gov.uscourts.cand.408645.128.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US District Court, N.D. California, Mobley v. Workday, order granting preliminary collective certification, 16 May 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-05T03:19:40.629587+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T03:19:40.629587+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["made-decision-about","hiring","applicant-screening","workday","employment-discrimination","age-discrimination","lawsuit","institutional-use"]},{"id":"2026-evans-santos-v-draftkings-ai-personalization-gambling-addiction","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"\"EVANS VS DRAFTKINGS INC. ETAL\"; \"Filing Date: Friday , July 24th, 2026\"; \"Case ID: 260702927\"; \"Case 2:26-cv-07168 Document 1-3 Filed 09/16/26\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"docketNumber \"2:26-cv-07168\", court \"paed\", dateFiled \"2026-09-16\", \"NOTICE OF REMOVAL by CROWN PA GAMING, INC., DRAFTKINGS INC.\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Christopher Evans filed a product-liability complaint against DraftKings Inc. and Crown PA Gaming in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on 24 July 2026 (Case ID 260702927); the defendants removed it to the E.D. Pa. on 16 September 2026 as 2:26-cv-07168.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court record (state docket report and federal removal filing)."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"\"IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CHESTER COUNTY\"; \"29 Jul 2026 03:54 PM\"; \"MICHAEL SANTOS,\"; \"2026-07200-TT\"; \"Case 2:26-cv-07176 Document 1-3 Filed 09/16/26\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"docketNumber \"2:26-cv-07176\", court \"paed\", dateFiled \"2026-09-16\", \"NOTICE OF REMOVAL by FANDUEL INC., FLUTTER ENTERTAINMENT, PLC, BETFAIR INTERACTIVE US LLC, FANDUEL GROUP PARENT LLC, FANDUEL PA LLC\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Michael Santos filed a complaint against DraftKings, Crown PA Gaming, FanDuel Inc. and FanDuel's affiliates in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas on 29 July 2026 (2026-07200-TT); the FanDuel defendants removed it to the E.D. Pa. on 16 September 2026 as 2:26-cv-07176.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court record."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"He began using the DraftKings applications in or around August 2017\"; \"Plaintiff has wagered over $2,100,000.00 with net losses of approximately $81,000.00\"; \"constantly received targeted promotions, personalized push notifications, and incentives like prop bets and free credits intended to repetitively lure him back into the gambling applications\"; \"also had a VIP account manager, who would send him promotional offers, bonuses, and perks\"; \"He soon began suffering from depression and anxiety and stopped going outside altogether in favor of gambling all day\"; \"creating financial strain that has placed him into debt and resulted in the repossession of his vehicle\"; \"resulted in his wife separating from him\"; \"was formally diagnosed with depression in 2020\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Evans pleads that since about August 2017 he wagered over US$2,100,000 on DraftKings' apps with net losses of about US$81,000, constantly received targeted promotions and personalised push notifications and had a VIP account manager, developed depression and anxiety and was formally diagnosed with depression in 2020, stopped going outside, fell into debt, had his vehicle repossessed and separated from his wife.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegations in a pending complaint; untested."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"has wagered over $1,164,000.00 with net losses of approximately $58,000.00\"; \"has wagered nearly $7,000 on FanDuel with losses of nearly $1,500\"; \"constantly received targeted advertisements, personalized push notifications, and incentive-based emails from DraftKings intended to repetitively lure him back into the gambling app\"; \"despite Plaintiff expressly stating he did not want to continue gambling\"; \"max out multiple credit cards and accrue debt so significant that it forced him to sell his house\"; \"has received formal diagnoses of depression and anxiety\"; \"drove Plaintiff MICHAEL SANTOS to suicidal ideation\"; \"voluntarily placed himself on a self-exclusion list with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in 2023\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Santos pleads that he wagered over US$1,164,000 on DraftKings with net losses of about US$58,000 and nearly US$7,000 on FanDuel with losses of nearly US$1,500, received targeted advertisements, personalised push notifications and incentive emails, had a VIP manager who kept offering bonus bets after he said he wanted to stop, maxed out multiple credit cards and was forced to sell his house, received diagnoses of depression and anxiety, experienced suicidal ideation, and self-excluded with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in 2023.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegations in a pending complaint; untested."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"\"Defendants utilize the combination of advanced technology and artificial intelligence paired with the tracking of personalized user data to intentionally addict users and continuously lure them back to their sports gambling apps\"; \"data science and machine learning to help optimize conversion\"; \"recommendation engines\"; \"Defendants operate sophisticated AI-powered engagement platforms that, on information and belief, employ the precise personalization mechanisms the study identifies as risk-generating\"; \"Limit or eliminating artificial intelligence to track individual\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"\"Defendants utilize the combination of advanced technology and artificial intelligence paired with the tracking of personalized user data to intentionally addict users\"; \"Limiting or eliminating artificial intelligence to track individual\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Both complaints allege that the defendants combine artificial intelligence with tracking of personalised user data to addict users and lure them back, that DraftKings' 10-K discloses machine-learning recommendation engines, and, on information and belief, that the defendants operate AI-powered engagement platforms; both ask the court to limit or eliminate the use of artificial intelligence to track individual users.","causal_attribution":"The contents of the pleadings are established by the record; the truth of the AI allegations is not."}],"effects":[{"label":"two plaintiffs plead gambling addiction, six-figure wagering with net losses of about US$81,000 and US$58,000, debt, family breakdown, depression and suicidal ideation, attributed to AI-driven personalization","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.662095/gov.uscourts.paed.662095.1.3.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-17 and 2026-09-19: Exhibit A to the notice of removal in Evans v. DraftKings Inc., E.D. Pa. 2:26-cv-07168 (47 pages: the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas docket report and the complaint of 24 July 2026), from the CourtListener RECAP archive.","independence_group":"evans-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.662118/gov.uscourts.paed.662118.1.3.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-19: Exhibit A to the notice of removal in Santos v. DraftKings Inc., E.D. Pa. 2:26-cv-07176 (53 pages: the complaint filed and attested in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas on 29 July 2026), from the CourtListener RECAP archive.","independence_group":"santos-complaint"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74801358/evans-v-draftkings-inc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Docket metadata read on 2026-09-19 through the CourtListener v4 search API (saved as cl-evans.json): case name, docket number 2:26-cv-07168, court E.D. Pa., filed 2026-09-16, cause 28:1332 diversity product liability, removal notice by Crown PA Gaming and DraftKings.","independence_group":"courtlistener-evans-docket"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74803784/santos-v-draftkings-inc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Docket metadata read on 2026-09-19 through the CourtListener v4 search API (saved as cl-santos3.json): docket number 2:26-cv-07176, court E.D. Pa., filed 2026-09-16, removal notice by FanDuel Inc., Flutter Entertainment, Betfair Interactive US, FanDuel Group Parent and FanDuel PA.","independence_group":"courtlistener-santos-docket"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","institutional_use"],"contexts":["finance","health","relationships","justice"],"unknowns":["Whether AI or machine-learning systems, rather than human account managers and conventional marketing, generated the promotions and notifications the plaintiffs describe; the 'AI-powered engagement platforms' allegation is pleaded on information and belief.","The defendants' responses; no answer, motion or ruling is recorded as of 2026-09-19.","When Santos began gambling on the apps and his current financial position.","Whether the plaintiffs also gambled on other operators' products."],"geography":{"basis":"Both plaintiffs are Pennsylvania residents (Philadelphia; Coatesville, Chester County) per the complaints; suits filed in Pennsylvania state courts and removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case: two pending complaints, read in full from the court record, allege that an operator's AI-driven personalization and engagement systems fostered gambling addiction with quantified losses, debt, family breakdown, psychiatric diagnoses and suicidal ideation. Filing facts are documented; the harms and the AI involvement are the plaintiffs' allegations and are recorded as such. Plaintiffs are identified only by the public case captions.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-19"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaints allege that the defendants' AI and machine-learning personalization systems tracked the plaintiffs' play and targeted them with promotions and notifications, and quote DraftKings' 10-K on machine-learning recommendation engines; the 'AI-powered engagement platforms' allegation is pleaded on information and belief. Nothing in the record yet establishes that AI systems made the targeting decisions about these two users, so the relation (a system making decisions about the person) is recorded as alleged.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Pennsylvania: two men sued DraftKings (one also FanDuel) alleging that AI-driven personalization, targeted promotions and VIP handling fostered gambling addiction; they plead net losses of about US$81,000 and US$58,000, debt, family breakdown, depression and, in one case, suicidal ideation","summary":"Christopher Evans (Philadelphia; complaint filed 24 July 2026 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas) and Michael Santos (Coatesville, Chester County; complaint filed 29 July 2026 in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas) sued DraftKings and its Pennsylvania affiliate; Santos also sued FanDuel and its parents. Both product-liability complaints, filed by the same law firm, allege that the defendants' sports-betting, daily-fantasy and casino apps are designed to addict, and that the companies 'utilize the combination of advanced technology and artificial intelligence paired with the tracking of personalized user data to intentionally addict users', operating 'AI-powered engagement platforms' (pleaded on information and belief) and, per DraftKings' 10-K as quoted, 'data science and machine learning' recommendation engines. Evans pleads that since about August 2017 he wagered over US$2.1 million with net losses of about US$81,000, received constant targeted promotions and personalised push notifications and a VIP account manager, developed depression and anxiety and was formally diagnosed with depression in 2020, stopped going outside, fell into debt, had his vehicle repossessed and separated from his wife. Santos pleads over US$1.164 million wagered on DraftKings with net losses of about US$58,000 plus small FanDuel losses, targeted advertising and a VIP manager who kept offering bonus bets after he said he wanted to stop, maxed-out credit cards, the forced sale of his house, diagnoses of depression and anxiety, suicidal ideation, and self-exclusion with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in 2023. Both cases were removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on 16 September 2026 (2:26-cv-07168 and 2:26-cv-07176). The allegations are untested.","incidentDate":"2017-08-01","incidentKind":"ongoing_experience","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-07-24","aiSystem":"DraftKings' and FanDuel's sportsbook, daily-fantasy and online-casino apps and their alleged AI and machine-learning personalization, recommendation and engagement systems (as pleaded; the complaints quote DraftKings' 10-K on 'data science and machine learning' and 'recommendation engines')","aiProduct":"DraftKings and FanDuel apps","aiCompany":"DraftKings Inc. (and Crown PA Gaming); FanDuel Inc. and affiliates (Flutter Entertainment) in the Santos suit","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","psychiatric_deterioration","relationship_disruption","property_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"As pleaded: gambling addiction with net losses of about US$81,000 (Evans) and about US$58,000 plus small FanDuel losses (Santos), debt, a repossessed vehicle and marital separation (Evans), maxed-out credit cards, a forced house sale, diagnosed depression and anxiety and suicidal ideation (Santos), attributed by the plaintiffs to the defendants' AI-driven personalization and engagement design.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":2,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two named plaintiffs, each pleading his own gambling addiction and losses as a user of the apps. Exact count of two; family members mentioned in the complaints are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.662095/gov.uscourts.paed.662095.1.3.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Evans v. DraftKings Inc. et al., E.D. Pa. 2:26-cv-07168, Notice of Removal Exhibit A (Philadelphia CCP complaint filed 24 July 2026), via CourtListener RECAP","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-20T03:19:52.470392+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:36.906135+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["gambling","sports-betting","algorithmic-personalization","engagement-design","product-liability","lawsuit","united-states","pennsylvania","draftkings","fanduel","institutional-use"]}]}