The Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on the U.S. sports betting industry took place on December 17, focusing primarily on federal regulations as a means to safeguard players from gambling-related harm. Key issues included the harassment of student athletes, problem gambling rates, and the influence of AI in the industry.
Senator Dick Durbin, leading the committee, criticized the overwhelming presence of gambling advertisements during sports events and emphasized the urgent need for operators to play a significant role in combating addiction.
“It is vital for Congress to examine the impacts of sports betting nationwide and determine future regulatory paths for the industry,” stated Durbin.
The committee heard from five witnesses: NCAA President Charlie Baker, former NFL player Johnson Bademosi, Dr. Harry Levant of Northeastern University’s Public Health Advocacy Institute, David Rebuck from New Jersey’s Division of Gaming Enforcement, and Keith S Whyte from the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG).
Some senators veered off-topic, questioning Baker on unrelated issues, such as transgender athlete participation in college sports, adding a peculiar twist to the proceedings.
**Rebuck’s Stance**
David Rebuck was the sole advocate for state self-regulation, asserting that the existing framework is effective. He recounted the pre-2018 scenario, where unregulated betting led to widespread illegal activity and emphasized that state and tribal governance can counter the ongoing black market threat.
Before legal wagering was possible, millions engaged in illegal betting operations, which were often linked to organized crime, without offering any player safety. Rebuck highlighted past successes in state regulation and opposed federal oversight, believing many states already implement effective measures like self-exclusion programs and academic partnerships for research. The industry, he argued, acknowledges the importance of responsible gambling, citing the Responsible Online Gaming Association (ROGA) as evidence of proactive efforts.
**AI’s “Hazardous” Influence**
Dr. Harry Levant expressed concern about technological advances in the legalized sports betting landscape of the past six years, pushing for congressional action to introduce comprehensive public health regulations akin to responses for other addictive products like opioids. Levant warned about AI’s harmful role, suggesting it creates an all-pervasive online gambling model that poses significant risk.
The collaboration of AI with sports leagues, media, and state authorities introduces an intensified betting environment, fast-tracked by technological advancements—a shift Levant fears will exacerbate addiction issues.
**Critique of the SAFE Bet Act**
The hearing addressed the SAFE Bet Act, spearheaded by Congressman Paul D Tonko and Senator Richard Blumenthal, seeking nationwide standards on aspects like advertising and affordability while urging a public health-centric response to betting harms.
The Act’s proposals, which require states offering sports betting to seek approval from the U.S. Attorney General, along with bans on specific NCAA athlete bets and ad broadcasts during certain hours, received mixed reactions. Baker and Bademosi supported the Act, albeit without full comprehension, whereas Rebuck reiterated state-level sufficiency in addressing these issues. Whyte from NCPG stayed neutral but acknowledged positive elements, while Levant, having contributed to its drafting, fully endorsed it.
**GRIT Act Advocacy**
Keith Whyte highlighted another legislative effort by Blumenthal, the GRIT (Gambling Addiction Recovery, Investment, and Treatment) Act, which would allocate federal funds for problem gambling research and treatment. Whyte criticized state and tribal authorities for underinvestment in these programs. The GRIT Act proposes channeling half of the sports betting tax revenue to state health agencies to enhance treatment accessibility.
“Evidence suggests that expanded sports betting has nationally escalated harm, and passing Blumenthal’s GRIT Act is crucial,” Whyte asserted.
**Concerns Over Prop Bets**
Charlie Baker addressed ongoing discussions about NCAA athlete prop bets, applauding states like Ohio, Louisiana, and Maryland for prohibiting them. He outlined the persistent issue of harassment experienced by student athletes, with surveys indicating significant bullying, particularly in basketball and football, often escalating to death threats. Bademosi proposed a federal prohibition on negative outcome betting to potentially reduce this harassment.
**Industry Feedback**
Following the hearing, several industry bodies responded, notably the American Gaming Association (AGA), lamenting the absence of industry representation in the discussion. AGA’s Joe Maloney highlighted this oversight, underscoring the sector’s contributions to consumer protection and responsible gaming.
The iDevelopment & Economic Association also voiced its opposition to federal involvement, defending current state systems as effective and warning against potential setbacks federal mandates could introduce.
ROGA, consisting of members like Bally’s and DraftKings, stressed the importance of collaborative efforts to ensure player protection, committing to ongoing investments in responsible gambling resources and compliance with legal standards.
This summary originally appeared in EGR Intel’s article, “Five things we learned from the US Senate committee debate on sports betting.”