Illinois “Bounty Hunter” Takes on Gambling Operators with Unusual Lawsuit
Historic Gambling Law Forms Basis of Modern Illinois Federal Case
A notable federal lawsuit has emerged in Illinois, driven by Mark T. Lavery, a resident known for his efforts against what he perceives as illegal gambling operations. Lavery has brought a claim asserting that contemporary online betting schemes breach an old English legal principle.
Defendants and Alleged Operations Span Multiple States and Platforms
The case filed in the Northern District of Illinois names three companies as defendants: Third Planet Media LLC, Novig Sweeps LLC, and Dabble Sports LLC. These businesses purportedly operate covert wagering sites accessed by players across Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts, Kentucky, and Texas. Websites connected to these firms reportedly include Props.com, Novig.us, and Dabble.com.
Third Planet Media is linked to gambling veterans Cal Spears, Adam Small, and Brett Smiley, while Novig Sweeps is reportedly based in New York, and Dabble Sports in Texas. None of the key executives reside in Illinois, which the plaintiff sees as justification for federal court jurisdiction.
Leveraging an 18th-Century Gambling Statute for Modern Enforcement
What sets this lawsuit apart is its reliance on a centuries-old statute, the 1710 Statute of Anne. Lavery, referring to himself as a “bounty hunter,” invokes gambling-loss recovery laws derived from this legislation. The historic law allowed individuals who lost money to illegal gambling to reclaim their losses from winners, or alternatively, a third party could step in to sue and claim a share of the recovery if the original loser did not act.
Claims of Illegal Betting and Regulatory Evasion
Lavery contends that these longstanding legal provisions remain valid and apply to modern online gambling platforms that fall outside exemptions like those for fantasy sports. The defendants are accused of creating and maintaining illicit betting systems targeting Illinois residents, all while avoiding licensing and tax obligations that apply to regulated sportsbooks.
Specifically, the lawsuit highlights “Pick Em” games and exchange-style wagering, which resemble prop bets but are marketed by operators as sweepstakes or commodity contracts. This classification may serve as a tactic to evade legal and regulatory oversight. The complaint requests civil penalties, triple damages under the gambling-loss recovery laws of the relevant states, an injunction to prevent further unlawful operations, and reimbursement of legal expenses.
Potential Impact of Reviving Historical Gambling Laws
Lavery argues that players have suffered financial losses due to these disputed websites, making the case an appropriate invocation of gambling-loss recovery statutes. The lawsuit raises a compelling question about whether antiquated gambling laws can be adapted to govern today’s online betting industry. Should the legal challenge succeed, its effects could extend well beyond Illinois, potentially influencing regulation nationwide.
