Responsible Gaming Study Finds State Shortcomings in Regulating Sports Betting

Posted on: September 19, 2024, 05:41h. 

Last updated on: September 19, 2024, 05:41h.

Devin O'Connor @CasinoorgDevinO Read More
Expertise: Asia Pacific Gaming, Commercial Gaming, Legislation, Politics.

The National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) says states that regulate online sports betting must do more to adequately protect consumers.

responsible gaming National Council on Problem Gambling
This is what AI came up with when prompted with “sports betting advertising.” The National Council on Problem Gambling reports that all states that have legal sports betting need to address their responsible gaming measures. (Image: AI)

The NCPG recently commissioned Vixio Regulatory Intelligence to review online sports gambling regulations in 30 states and Washington, D.C. Vixio researchers assessed how each state’s sports betting landscape complies with the NCPG’s Internet Responsible Gambling Standards (IRGS).

The findings were grim.

Vixio found that, on average, states met only 32 of the 82 player-protection guidelines listed in the IRGS. Connecticut, New Jersey, and Virginia were the most compliant but still met only 49 conditions.

The IRGS serves as a roadmap for states to utilize when developing sports betting regulations, ensuring that player protection remains the top priority,” said Keith Whyte, executive director of the NCPG. “This report reflects the patchwork nature of existing regulations and the significant gaps in consumer protections.”

The NGCP is a D.C.-based nonprofit that works to minimize the economic harms and societal costs associated with gambling addiction. The organization does not support or oppose gaming.

Regulatory Improvements Needed

The IRGS is a laundry list of best practices designed to protect consumers from gambling irresponsibly. The principles were developed in 2012 and have since been updated, most recently in December 2023, to adapt to the changing legal gaming climate in the U.S.

The National Council on Problem Gambling says the IRGS is the culmination of working collaboratively with gaming operators, regulators, responsible gaming experts, and mental health clinicians and advocates. The guidelines focus on regulatory policy, staff training, player assistance, self-exclusion programs, advertising and marketing, and account management.

Whyte is encouraging all state gaming regulators that oversee legal sports betting to rethink their responsible gaming protocols.

“We urge legislators and regulators to take immediate steps to close these gaps and work to mitigate gambling-related harm,” Whyte said.

Ten states and D.C. met at least 40 of the IRGS standards. Along with Connecticut, New Jersey, and Virginia, they were Colorado, D.C., Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.

Nine states met between 25 and 39 standards: Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, and Vermont.

The NCPG says the worst states when it comes to regulating online sports betting for responsible play are Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Nevada, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Those states met 24 or fewer Standards.?

Federal Intervention?

The NCPG’s report suggesting failures in protecting consumers in legal online sports betting states comes a week after a federal bill was introduced in Congress that seeks to intervene in the current piecemeal state-to-state regulatory approach.

U.S. Rep. Paul Tonko (D-New York) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) are behind the SAFE Bet Act. If passed, the legislation would force states that allow sports gambling to implement a series of conditions designed to better protect the public.

The SAFE Bet would limit sportsbooks to advertising on television only between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. Sports betting commercials would additionally be banned during all live sports programming.

The American Gaming Industry opposes the congressional bill on the grounds that states already have adequate consumer protections in place.