DraftKings isn’t backing away from microbetting, even with lawsuits piling up that claim rapid-fire wagering products fuel gambling addiction. Co-founder Paul Liberman made the company’s ambitions absolutely clear at the Milken Institute Global Conference this week, signalling that DraftKings will expand its micro prediction markets wherever regulators crack open the door.

The Microbetting Growth Story

In-play betting now accounts for over 62% of all sports wagering. These ultra-quick bets on specific in-game moments like the next possession, pitch, or play have become the fastest-growing segment of the market. The appeal for DraftKings? Microbetting keeps bettors glued throughout games and opens doors in states where traditional sports betting remains off limits.

Last year, the operator made its move by acquiring Simplebet for nearly $200 million, buying direct entry into the prediction market space. Liberman acknowledged that prediction markets and traditional sportsbooks deliver similar experiences to consumers. He framed sportsbooks as the superior product overall, though.

Legal Storm Brewing

The Public Health Advocacy Institute filed suit against DraftKings, FanDuel, the NFL, and data provider Genius Sports, arguing that microbetting induces a “trancelike state” that keeps bettors locked in. Player unions have also petitioned the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to ban player prop markets entirely.

None of this appears to be slowing DraftKings down. Liberman insisted both sportsbook and prediction market products offer genuine value to customers. The regulatory landscape, frankly, favours the company’s position. Prediction markets operate under different rules than traditional sportsbooks, allowing DraftKings access to major markets like Texas and California where gambling remains prohibited.

The Regulatory Angle

Industry figures like Kalshi board member Brian Quintenz have worked to distinguish speculation in financial markets from gambling, a distinction that could give DraftKings breathing room. That argument gets harder to sustain, though, as markets shrink to individual pitches or serves rather than major sporting outcomes with genuine economic consequences.

DraftKings’ strategy for now is straightforward: participate wherever possible, push for regulatory approval, and let the legal challenges work themselves out. It’s a calculated bet that innovation and market demand will ultimately carry the day.

What the team thinks

Sheena McAllister says:

While DraftKings’ confidence in microbetting’s market potential is understandable given the 62% in-play betting figure, Carl’s piece underplays the regulatory complexity that will ultimately determine this expansion strategy, particularly around how different jurisdictions interpret harm prevention obligations under their operating licenses. The UKGC’s recent emphasis on safer gambling measures and affordability checks suggests that operators can’t simply follow market demand, they’ll need to demonstrate robust product controls and customer protection frameworks that go beyond legal defense, or risk license sanctions. What’s really missing from the narrative is whether DraftKings is innovating on responsible gambling features for microbetting at the same pace they’re innovating on the product itself, because that’s where the regulatory story will actually be won or lost.