In the USA, Congressman Paul Tonko (NY) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (CT) introduced the SAFE Bet Act during a press conference in Washington, DC. The bill aims to create federal oversight on sports betting, focusing on advertising, affordability, and artificial intelligence (AI).
Minimum federal standards
The SAFE Bet Act—short for Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet—comes in response to the rapid growth of sports betting since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling, which allowed states to legalise it. The legislation would require states that offer sports betting to meet minimum federal standards and submit applications for approval to the Department of Justice. These standards include strict regulations on when and how sports betting advertisements can be aired, limits on deposits, and prohibitions on certain uses of AI.
Senator Blumenthal declared that the current landscape of sports betting is “out of control” and federal intervention is necessary. While the act does not seek to outlaw sports betting entirely, it would mandate a “nationwide prohibition” unless states comply with the newly proposed regulations.
Addressing affordability and AI
The SAFE Bet Act bill aims to require sports betting operators to ensure affordability for bettors. One key provision would limit players to a maximum of five deposits within a 24-hour period, while also prohibiting the use of credit cards for deposits. Additionally, gambling operators would be required to perform financial checks on users who wager beyond certain limits—specifically, $1,000 in a single day or $10,000 over a month. If a bettor’s gambling exceeds 30% of their income, they would be restricted from placing further bets.
Perhaps the most controversial part of the act is its ban on the use of artificial intelligence to track betting behaviour and tailor personalised offers, as well as the prohibition of AI-driven products like microbetting. Blumenthal stated that AI’s role in gambling is “frightening,” particularly in how it can exploit vulnerable players.
Restricting advertising
The SAFE Bet Act also targets sports betting advertisements, proposing a ban on ads between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. local time and prohibiting ads during live sports broadcasts. It would also restrict the use of promotional language like “bonus” or “odds boost” that encourage betting, and prevent ads from explaining how to gamble.
Rep. Tonko voiced concerns over celebrities endorsing betting through ads, stating, “Promoting gambling through influencers and media personalities to the masses is unacceptable, especially when targeting vulnerable individuals, including children.”
“A slap in the face” says the industry
Chris Cylke, Senior Vice President of Government Relations for the American Gaming Association (AGA), criticised the bill, arguing that it undermines the progress states have made in regulating betting markets.
“Introducing heavy-handed federal prohibitions is a slap in the face to state legislatures and regulators who have dedicated time and resources to creating responsible frameworks that address their own markets,” Cylke said.
“Today’s regulated sports wagering operators are contributing billions in state taxes across the U.S., protecting consumers from dangerous neighbourhood 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,” he added.
Opposition also came from iDEA Growth, a trade group representing sports betting operators, who called the act an unnecessary intrusion that would hamper states’ abilities to manage their markets. The trade association declared: “While we strongly support efforts to promote responsible gaming and player protections, this legislation represents an unnecessary and harmful federal overreach into an area that has been successfully regulated at the state level.”
Concerned about the impact on channelisation, it added: “ The federal government risks pushing more consumers toward unregulated, illegal markets—where no safeguards exist. Instead of imposing unnecessary restrictions on legal, state-licensed sport betting operators, Congress should use its power to collaborate with states to shut down illegal offshore sportsbooks that brazenly defy federal law.”
Despite the criticism, both Tonko and Blumenthal defended the need for a federal framework. “We are not telling states what they can and cannot do. We’re establishing a floor of minimum standards they need to meet,” Blumenthal explained. States would still have significant control over their sports betting markets but would be required to meet the federal standards outlined in the SAFE Bet Act.
Unlock winning moments: Discover the best odds on SiGMA Play.
