U.S. betting operators push back as federal rules threaten free rein
Gambling firms across the United States are going all in to block consumer protections that could curb addiction. A new investigation from The Guardian, based on findings from the Campaign for Accountability, reveals a coordinated push by operators to derail regulations in multiple states. Behind the scenes, lobbyists have worked to water down rules on advertising, bonuses, in-game betting, and data usage.
With legal sports betting exploding in the wake of the 2018 Supreme Court ruling that struck down the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), the U.S. industry is now worth billions. However, critics argue that many operators are playing a dangerous game. As watchdogs raise the alarm on addiction and suicidality, lawmakers face a high-stakes standoff: rein in the industry or risk letting it spiral.
Regulation roulette begins
The Guardian’s 15 April report details several examples of gambling companies pressuring regulators to weaken or abandon proposed consumer protections.
In Arizona, DraftKings pushed back against a rule stating that bonuses labelled “free” must involve no player deposit. DraftKings argued it was “industry standard to promote free play to accompany a player’s deposit.” The Arizona Department of Gaming ultimately agreed. The final regulation requires disclosure of terms and conditions.
In Virginia, Caesars and DraftKings lobbied against a 2021 proposal that platforms should include features encouraging breaks in play. Caesars argued that this should be voluntary. DraftKings dismissed the requirement altogether, claiming that bettors “do not play games” and such rules were irrelevant. The lottery board sided with the operators and dropped the requirement.
In Maine, WynnBet opposed a 2023 proposal banning bonus-related advertising on television. They said promotional offers were “frequently tied to sporting events” and were essential for customer engagement. Despite backing from the National Council on Problem Gambling, regulators in Maine allowed such promotions to continue.
In New York, FanDuel fought a rule that would hold operators responsible for the language used by their marketing affiliates. The company also rebelled against a ban on advertising near college campuses, calling it too vague. Regulators passed both measures despite the objections.
Elsewhere, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission resisted pressure to allow the use of sensitive consumer data for promotions, rejecting arguments that this would hinder routine marketing. In Vermont, regulators went ahead with bonus caps despite opposition from FanDuel and Caesars.
The house always spins the story
Gambling operators often justify their resistance with economic arguments. DraftKings warned that limits on analytics in Massachusetts would inhibit “basic marketing activities that other industries freely engage in.”
The Sports Betting Alliance, representing major operators, said banning in-game betting in Minnesota would slash state revenue and gift the market to illegal operators. “Half of all bets in the US are in-game wagers,” they argued. Ransomware attacks recently struck tribal casinos in Minnesota and Michigan.
Caesars objected to proposed limits in Vermont, saying caps on promotions are “not typically set by the regulatory body” in other jurisdictions. FanDuel added the move would force sportsbooks to offer less attractive products than neighbouring states or black-market operators.
Penn Entertainment, in 2020, lobbied against a Virginia rule banning ads that imply more bets increase your chances of winning. They requested that “imply” be replaced with “guarantee.” The board declined.
FanDuel issued a statement to The Guardian: “FanDuel appreciates the invitation state regulators and legislators have provided our representatives to participate in important testimony related to online sports wagering. As a licensed and regulated operator, we believe it’s critically important to support public discourse and the collective efforts to build sustainable long-term frameworks that prioritise customer protection.”
DraftKings similarly stated: “Well-designed, state-specific sports betting structures offer responsible gaming tools and resources to help consumers play in an informed and responsible manner while providing critical tax revenue for states.”
Gambling companies aren’t just lobbying. They’re shaping legislation to suit their business models, all under the banner of economic rationale. Behind the polished press releases and economic forecasts, something colder moves: a system that fears restraint and feeds on risk. They’re crafting a world where protection looks suspicious, and vulnerability looks like opportunity. And we’re left asking whether the real gamble isn’t the bet but who’s allowed to lose.
SAFE Bet Act reshuffles the deck
While most gambling regulations currently lie with states, the proposed SAFE Bet Act would introduce sweeping federal standards for online sports betting. The bill would require all states to meet national standards overseen by the U.S. Attorney General.
Key reforms include:
- A ban on credit card deposits
- A five-deposit daily cap
- Mandatory affordability checks for high spenders (over $1,000 in 24 hours or $10,000 in a month)
- Restrictions on AI-driven micro-betting and personalised promotions
- Advertising bans during live events and between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m.
- Prohibitions on celebrity endorsements and college sports prop bets
The legislation would create uniformity across state markets. Operators would face compliance certification and higher operational costs, but it could also offer reputational benefits by restoring consumer trust.
Short-term losses, long-term levelling
The SAFE Bet Act could slow industry growth in the short term. Operators may lose high-spending customers and see reduced returns from aggressive promotions. But for many advocates, this isn’t a loss: it’s a long overdue reckoning.
Many see eliminating credit card gambling as vital consumer protection. Credit cards allow betting with borrowed money, raising the risk of debt-fuelled addiction. The UK’s ban on credit card gambling in 2020 led to a marked drop in related harm. Importantly, it did not result in a spike in payday loan use or black-market betting.
In the long run, the SAFE Bet Act could encourage new players to enter the market by building a safer, more transparent ecosystem. Uniform regulation could simplify compliance for operators and give players more confidence.
The long game for U.S. gambling isn’t volume. It’s viability. Regulators and operators face the challenge of building a market that protects consumers without stifling innovation.
Tipping point or stacked deck?
States would have one year to meet the Act’s requirements. Those that fail could see legal sports betting rolled back, creating a potential patchwork of non-compliant jurisdictions.
More people are searching for help. More stories are surfacing. VIPs pulled back in by shiny offers. The public’s patience? Wearing thin. Google Trends and mental health helplines, including the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG), reported increased traffic in 2023 and 2024, a warning light regulators can’t afford to ignore. Michelle Kuppersmith, executive director of the Campaign for Accountability, noted, “Implementing consumer protections around online sports betting isn’t just picking winners and losers on a balance sheet. It’s about protecting lives.”
Gambling addiction is now being treated as a public health emergency by campaigners and clinicians alike. The current regulatory patchwork has allowed high-risk practices to flourish, particularly those targeting young men and vulnerable users.
As watchdogs call time on a game they say is rigged in favour of profits over people, the question becomes: how long can lawmakers afford to fold?
America’s sports betting boom has shown the industry’s hand. Now, the cards are on the table, and someone needs to call the bluff.
