In the week since the Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet (SAFE) Bet Act was introduced, lawmakers, sports leagues and trade organizations have all expressed concerns about the scope of the restrictions it seeks to implement.
Rep. Paul Tonko and Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s legislation would create federal oversight of state-run sports betting.
Among its particular proposals are to ban sportsbook advertising from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. and during live sports broadcasts, prohibit college player prop bets and all in-game wagers, implement language restrictions on words like “bonus” and “odds boost,” and introduce other limits on how and what operators can advertise.
It would also federally mandate affordability checks for sports bettors in the regulated U.S. market for the first time, and take proactive steps to limit the use of AI by sportsbook operators to track bettors’ behavior or create personalized betting offers.
Rep. Dina Titus brands bill ‘misguided’
Speaking at a gaming industry event hosted by news outlet Semafor and marketed by the American Gaming Association on Sept. 19, a week after Tonko and Blumenthal’s public address, Nevada Rep. Dina Titus called the SAFE Bet Act “a misguided approach” and one she doesn’t expect to get over the lines, at least not anytime soon.
“I don’t see it passing, certainly not this session,” said Titus. “Probably nothing’s going to pass this session, but we don’t want it to get a head of steam going forward.”
Titus also stressed that she does not believe a federal framework of restrictions such as the one proposed by Tonko and Blumenthal is the correct way to go about things.
“I don’t think that’s the way to approach it. I certainly support responsible gaming and the industry does, they’ve taken bold steps going back to the ’90s to regulate themselves. I think that’s better; to have self-regulation or state regulation, not have the federal government get involved at this level.”
NJ, MA figures criticize federal lawmakers’ approach
Speaking at an industry webinar organized by industry advocacy group iDEA Growth on the same day as Semafor’s event, former New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement Director David Rebuck was more stern in his criticism of what he saw as efforts to take gambling regulation out of the hands of states and put it under federal oversight.
Noting that in some cases, state regulators have attempted to get federal help to clamp down on regulated offshore gambling sites, Rebuck said, “it’s mind-boggling to me the arrogance of saying ‘we know more than you do’ without working on things together that we have already reached out to them to work on to make things better for our citizens in all the states that legalize sports wagering.”
Speaking on the same panel as Rebuck, Massachusetts Rep. David Muradian echoed the former NJ DGE director’s sentiments. Muradian took particular issue with Blumenthal’s assertion that federal oversight is needed because state regulation has proven to be “faint-hearted and half-baked.”
“When you hear that, it kind of flies in the face of all of us who put so much time into crafting legislation that we thought was meaningful,” said Muradian. “As the ranking member on the Economic Development Committee and one of six members on the conference committee that ultimately negotiated the final bill, we spent a ton of time trying for legislation that was fair to everyone … So, to hear the half-baked thing, it’s brutal when we sat through 70 meetings just to craft the House version of the bill.”
Sports leagues not entirely opposed, but have key concerns
Sports leagues and organizations have also begun to have their say.
ESPN’s David Purdum reports while major leagues hold some support for certain measures, such as the provisions designed to help protect the integrity of the league and combat game manipulation, the proposed advertising ban “raised eyebrows.” The leagues are also believed to be likely to oppose the prohibition of live betting.
However, an NCAA spokesperson told Purdum that it welcomes the bill, particularly the notion of banning college player props. The college sports governing body says those types of bets on its sports are already prohibited in 18 of the 38 states that offer legal betting.
Like Titus, sports leagues have also cast doubt on whether or not the bill will make any progress in the near future. An NBA source told ESPN that the league believes the introduction of the SAFE Bet Act is “the starting point to a very lengthy process.”
NCPG takes agnostic view, prefers GRIT Act
The National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) has also had its say. The NCPG published a letter in which it struck a self-described “neutral” stance on the SAFE Bet Act, stressing that it “neither supports nor opposes the SAFE Bet Act as the legislation accomplishes its objectives by first instituting a nationwide prohibition on sports betting.”
However, it did stress that the introduction of the bill “draws attention to the need for stronger consumer protections for not just sports bettors but all gamblers and a safety net for anyone who develops a problem.” The NCPG hopes the proposal will raise awareness of the need for federal government research into gambling addiction, national self-exclusion tools and advertising standards.
Ultimately, though, the NCPG asserted that the SAFE Bet Act, “as currently proposed, lacks the necessary investment in public health infrastructure to adequately address gambling addiction.” The act does not explicitly provide for new funding of programs to combat problem gambling or addiction programs, instead focusing on holding operators to national standards.
Instead, the NCPG said it remains committed to advancing the Gambling Addiction Recovery, Investment, and Treatment (GRIT) Act, which would establish the first-ever federal funding for gambling addiction prevention, treatment, and research programs. The GRIT Act was introduced in January by Blumenthal and Rep. Andrea Salinas.
