A full committee hearing on the legalization of sports gambling in the U.S. will take place on Tuesday, Dec. 17. The hearing, which starts at 10 a.m., will be presided over by Chair Dick Durbin at the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C.
The committee hearing comes following a number of far-reaching proposals aimed at the stricter regulation of sports betting in the U.S.
The proposed bill, which has been called the Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet (SAFE Bet) Act, is designed to be “the first comprehensive legislation that would address the public health implications inherent in the widespread legalization of sports betting.” But it’s already come up against fierce criticism from influential lawmakers.
Blumenthal, Tonko aim for national regulatory standards
First introduced in September by Senator Richard Blumenthal and Representative Paul Tonko, the proposals include set limits on sports betting advertising, measures to fight the spread of problem gambling, and other public safety measures aimed at protecting the vulnerable from gambling addiction and its effects.
Initially, under the new proposals, a nationwide ban on sports betting would be introduced. The 38 states that have legalized sports betting in some form would then have to apply for its legalization via the U.S. Justice Department.
New rules would then see the U.S. Attorney General making the decision to either approve or reject these applications. Importantly, every approval would be limited to a three-year period, after which a renewal would need to be sought.
Strict deposit limits and rules on AI proposed
The regulations being discussed would see individual states tasked with proving that they adhere to the minimum federal standards relating to sports betting advertising, as well as measures designed to protect customers such as deposit limits. There would also be set rules around the use of artificial intelligence by U.S. sportsbooks and online casinos.
Under the terms of the bill, sportsbooks would have to limit account deposits to five times in any 24-hour period. Credit card deposits would be prohibited entirely, and operators would legally have to conduct affordability checks before they could accept any wagers totalling more than $1,000 in a 12-hour period, or $10,000 within 30 days.
"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," Blumenthal said, discussing the need for the proposed bill.
"We need to address addictions of all kinds. If not, we're failing in our responsibilities," Tonko added.
Opposition intensifies amongst industry lobbyists
Gambling industry lobbyists have been quick to oppose the ideas, of course. Lobbyists have already pointed out that extensive industry controls are already in place across the country, overseen by more than 5,000 different state and tribal regulators.
The American Gaming Association released a statement soon after the bill was first introduced.
“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.
“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.”
High-profile lawmaker Nevada Rep. Dina Titus has been quick to voice criticism, too, suggesting that the act will have its fair share of passionate opponents in congress.
Titus, whose district includes part of Las Vegas, co-chairs the Congressional Gaming Caucus in Washington, D.C.
“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.”
