A man in Nashville is locked in a legal battle with BetMGM, alleging the sportsbook disregarded his explicit request for self-exclusion. Dilvar Tayip claims the company allowed him to gamble for years after he formally asked to be blocked from their platform, a betrayal of their own stated policies.
On June 16, 2021, Tayip took a decisive step, enrolling in both Tennessee’s voluntary self-exclusion program and BetMGM’s separate, internal exclusion list. Both were intended to bar him from betting until June 16, 2026 – a five-year commitment to reclaim control. He sought this protection despite a history as a successful sports bettor, recognizing the need for a complete break.
The state prematurely removed Tayip from its exclusion list in May 2023, a move he acknowledges. However, he insists this state action shouldn’t have impacted BetMGM’s independent obligation to uphold his exclusion, citing the company’s own firm language on the matter.
BetMGM’s policy clearly states that self-exclusion is “irrevocable and binding” for the chosen duration, and that removal from a state list has no bearing on the operator’s separate responsibilities. This policy, Tayip argues, was directly violated when BetMGM allowed him to resume wagering shortly after his removal from the state program.
From May 2023 to roughly June 2025, Tayip continued to place bets on the platform, accumulating wins and losses totaling nearly $300,000. He alleges that these wagers should have been voided and refunded, as stipulated in BetMGM’s own policy for self-excluded users.
Evidence presented in court includes screenshots of active wagers placed while his exclusion was supposedly in effect. One example shows a substantial $1,000 parlay bet from March 23, 2025, with a potential payout exceeding $7,400. Further records detail additional bets placed just weeks later, totaling over $2,200.
Tayip’s lawsuit accuses BetMGM of multiple violations, including breaches of Tennessee’s gaming and consumer protection laws. He also alleges negligence, fraud, and unjust enrichment, arguing the company knowingly exploited his vulnerability after he sought self-exclusion.
The complaint further alleges that BetMGM not only failed to prevent his wagering but actively encouraged it, even advising him on how to circumvent the state’s exclusion list in earlier communications related to a separate federal case. This paints a disturbing picture of a company prioritizing profit over player protection.
Tayip is seeking full reimbursement for all wagers placed during the period of his violated exclusion, along with additional damages, legal fees, and further relief from the court. He aims to hold BetMGM accountable for its alleged disregard of its own policies and its impact on his financial well-being.
This case emerges alongside other concerning reports, including allegations of improper marketing to underage individuals linked to BetMGM in Massachusetts and a class action lawsuit against DraftKings accusing them of exploiting users struggling with gambling addiction. These incidents raise serious questions about industry-wide practices.
The Davidson County Chancery Court has already separated Tayip’s original filing, allowing administrative appeals and distinct claims to proceed independently. The legal proceedings are ongoing, promising a closer examination of BetMGM’s practices and the protections afforded to vulnerable gamblers.
