A proposed bill to implement federal guardrails on sports betting across the state will be discussed among lawmakers next week, but many state regulators oppose interference from their federal colleagues.
Temporary Ban
Perhaps the most jarring among the changes expressed in Washington would be a temporary ban on sports betting across the nation. This would necessitate the 38 US states that have legalized sports betting via mobile, retail, or both would be forced to apply for permission to reengage in sports betting under the Department of Justice.
One of the leading bills to put some of the power of sports betting in the hands of the federal government is the Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet, or the SAFE Bet Act, sponsored by two Democratic lawmakers, U.S. Congressman Paul Tonko of New York and Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.
The SAFE Bet Act is described as “the first comprehensive legislation that would address the public health implications inherent in the widespread legalization of sports betting.”
“State regulation is faint-hearted and half-baked. That’s why we need a national standard. Not to ban gambling but simply to take back control over an industry that is out of bounds,” Senator Blumenthal said, discussing the need for the proposed bill.
Lawmakers Call for Action
“This relationship between the gambling industry and sports has reached intolerably dangerous levels, and it’s well past time for Congress to just step up and make a difference,” Representative Paul Tonko said in a press conference in September.
The SAFE Bet Act would institute several measures to harness sports betting’s societal impact, which would include prohibiting sports betting during live sports events and restricting bettors from making more than five deposits in a 24-hour period. Tracking a player’s betting habits via artificial intelligence would also be prohibited. Sportsbooks currently use AI to tailor promotions to their customers based on their gaming preferences.
Bad Idea Says AGA
The American Gaming Association has been diametrically opposed to the SAFE Bet Act since it was announced several months ago. State regulators have also taken exception, noting they have spent countless hours crafting sports betting bills and rules that have been working in their jurisdictions.
“Today’s regulated sports wagering operators are contributing billions in state taxes across the U.S., protecting consumers from dangerous neighborhood bookies and illegal offshore websites, and working diligently with over 5,000 state and tribal regulators and other stakeholders to ensure a commitment to responsibility and positive play,” senior vice president of government relations Chris Cylke said in the September statement.
Criticism of Federal Interference
Clyke also took direct aim at the federal legislators proposing the bill, stating, “Six years into legal sports betting, introducing heavy-handed federal prohibitions is a slap in the face to state legislatures and gaming regulators who have dedicated countless time and resources to developing thoughtful frameworks unique to their jurisdictions and have continued to iterate as their marketplaces evolve.”
Nevada Representative Dina Titus, whose district includes part of Las Vegas and co-chairs the Congressional Gaming Caucus in Washington, D.C., said, “I think that’s better to have self-regulation or state regulation, not to have the federal government get involved at this level,” Titus said, commenting on the bill.
“I don’t think that’s the way to approach it. I certainly support responsible gaming. The industry does. They’ve taken bold steps, going back to the 90s, to regulate themselves, and I think that’s better, to have self-regulation or state regulation, not have the federal government get involved at this level.”
