Beyond the headline of the New Jersey bill that bans online sweepstakes casinos, a newly added measure has drawn the ire of some in the gambling industry.
When lawmakers quickly passed A5447 on Monday, giving it the green light in both chambers as the Garden State legislature looked to beat the July 1 deadline, they did so in expanded and broadened form. Not only does it ban dual-currency online sweeps and increase penalties for illegal gambling, but its final approved version also moves the goalposts on what is allowed when it comes to proxy betting.
While it doesn’t use the term itself, the bill addresses “bearding” in wagering, wherein a person places bets using another person’s account to avoid detection. This practice may be used for numerous reasons. As one example, a banned gambler could feasibly attempt to continue wagering on a platform where they are prohibited. As another, high rollers or well-known gamblers could use a beard to bet without recognition to avoid being restricted or facing unfavorable odds shifts.
Some sportsbooks and/or states already determine proxy betting to be malpractice. Now, A5447, which is awaiting Gov. Phil Murphy’s signature, takes a rare hardline stance against what the bill’s text calls betting conducted “with the purpose to deceive,” in which a person stakes at least $1,000 when they’ve agreed to pay at least 10% of the winnings to someone else.
Such activity would be classified as a disorderly persons offense unless it was used to earn more than $75,000 in profits, in which case it would be a second-degree felony.
Industry questions lawmakers’ proxy moxie
While the sweepstakes issue, along with New Jersey’s gambling tax hike, are understandably dominating the conversation, the bearding provision has attracted some attention from industry personnel. In essence, the amended law would mean a group of people can’t get together and place wagers on the same thing.
An expanded definition of “swindling and cheating” now includes a vague reference to placing a bet with “information not available to the general public.”
“Amounts involved in acts of swindling and cheating committed pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, whether from the same person or several persons, may be aggregated in determining the grade of the offense,” adds the text.
Richard Schuetz, the former commissioner at the California Gambling Control Commission who is CEO of Schuetz LLC and of non-profit organization American Bettors’ Voice (ABV), told SBC Americas in a statement that ABV believes the proxy change is “overly broad and poorly written, with little understanding or thought.”
Meanwhile, Prime Sportsbook founder and noted industry voice Joe Brennan Jr. wrote on social media on Tuesday that the bill “seeks to criminalize players even talking to each other before betting.”
“The language is so broad, it could make Jason Kelce guilty of ‘swindling & cheating’ when he gives his pick on his NFL pregame show,” Brennan wrote. He added that a significant result of the change could be that bettors are driven out of the state and/or onto the black market.
Don’t worry, we got this covered
Brennan also noted that New Jersey sportsbooks can already ban that kind of betting liquidity in their terms and conditions. “Most do; Sporttrade and Prime Sportsbook do not, and will gladly take that liquidity to keep it in the legal NJ market.”
In another post on X, Brennan argued that the proxy betting change violates the constitutional right to freedom of association. “Since the underlying activity – betting at a licensed NJ sportsbook – is not a criminal offense, there is no basis for this law, and [it] should remain something operators choose whether to permit or not in their T&Cs,” he opined.
‘Captain’ Jack Andrews, a professional sports bettor who co-founded Unabated.com, echoed the argument that sportsbooks already have this covered without the need for a legislative change. He also suggested that the new law would put placing a bet for someone else on the same level of illegal as using loaded dice, marking cards or rigging a slot machine.
“What bothers me the most about [the change] is how utterly UNNECESSARY it is to pass something like this,” he wrote on X. “It’s a waste of resources to even consider enforcing this. It’s also already covered in just about every sportsbook’s T&Cs. It won’t matter until someone gets made an example of.”
