Illinois “Bounty Hunter” Challenges Operators in Unusual Gambling Lawsuit

A new federal case in Illinois is attracting attention for its unusual legal challenge and eccentric plaintiff. Mark T. Lavery, an Illinois resident who has spent years challenging what he sees as illegal gambling schemes, has filed a lawsuit that claims modern online wagering violates legal theory tied to an antiquated English law. 

The Law in Question Dates Back to the 18th Century

Lavery’s complaint, submitted in the Northern District of Illinois, targets three companies: Third Planet Media LLC, Novig Sweeps LLC, and Dabble Sports LLC. The plaintiff alleges these operators are conducting concealed wagering operations that reached bettors in Illinois and four other states: Ohio, Massachusetts, Kentucky, and Texas. According to Lavery, the companies used a lineup of websites, including Props.com, Novig.us, and Dabble.com.

The lawsuit states that Third Planet is linked to gambling industry veterans Cal Spears, Adam Small, and Brett Smiley. Novig Sweeps is reportedly a New York-run business, while Dabble Sports is allegedly located in Texas. None of these companies’ leading executives are citizens of Illinois, a fact that Lavery believes supports federal jurisdiction.

What makes the lawsuit so peculiar is the legal framework Lavery leans on. He refers to himself as a “bounty hunter,” empowered by the gambling-loss recovery laws of several states. These trace their lineage back to the 1710 Statute of Anne, legislation that allowed people who lost money to illegal gambling to reclaim the amount from the winner. If they did not act quickly, a third party could sue instead and be entitled to a share of the recovery.

The Plaintiff Makes Some Bold Claims

Lavery argues that historical provisions still carry force and are applicable against modern online operators offering products that fall outside fantasy-sports exemptions and into illegal gambling territory. He alleges that the defendants created and sustained illegal betting platforms specifically targeting Illinois residents while avoiding the licensing and tax requirements imposed on regulated sportsbooks.

The plaintiff also singles out “Pick Em” games and exchange-style wagering products that mimic prop bets but are described by operators as sweepstakes or commodity contracts, potentially sidestepping regulatory scrutiny. The lawsuit seeks civil penalties and treble damages under the gambling-loss recovery statutes of the five states involved, in addition to an injunction blocking further operations and for reimbursement of legal costs.

According to Lavery, players suffered losses through the disputed websites, making the case a perfect fit for gambling-loss recovery laws. His lawsuit raises an intriguing question: Can a relic of early-modern gambling law become a tool for regulating modern online betting markets? If so, the consequences could reach far past Illinois.