SAFE Bet Act Doesn’t Receive Support by Gambling Industry

By Jerry Smith Staff Writer Updated: 10/09/2024

Jerry Smith Staff Writer See Full Bio

Jerry’s greatest advantage is his extensive experience on the casino floor. His time as a casino manager taught him everything about what makes a player tick. Besides being a skilled poker player, he has deep knowledge of all live table games and gambling regulations in the US.

Twitter X

SAFE Bet Act Doesn’t Receive Support

On September 12, 2024, US Representative Paul Tonko and Senator Richard Blumenthal introduced the SAFE Bet Act, which seeks to reverse the 2018 Supreme Court decision on legal sports betting as a states’ rights issue. Industry professionals and responsible gambling (RG) advocates criticized the proposal and expressed concerns about its potential overreach.

The bill addresses problem gambling as a national public health issue, and many argue that its broader provisions could do more harm than good. Some have gone as far as calling it “obnoxious” and “insulting” to the existing regulatory framework in the United States.

Gambling Industry Concerns

Industry professionals have been clear about the complications the SAFE Bet Act could introduce to the current system. Jeff Ifrah, a gaming lawyer and founding member of the iDevelopment and Economic Association (iDEA), argued that the bill imposes an “unconstitutional registration requirement” and is trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. Ifrah feels the sponsors are overcomplicating things by adding layers of federal regulation that undermine states’ rights to manage legal betting on their own.

Another major concern is the requirement for states with legal sports betting to get approval from the federal attorney-general to keep operating. With 38 states and the District of Columbia already offering sports betting, this extra step could create unnecessary confusion and inefficiency in an already complex regulatory environment.

Former New Jersey regulator David Rebuck shared similar thoughts, calling the bill “arrogant” for disregarding the ability of state regulators who have successfully managed legal sports betting for years.

Mixed Reactions from Responsible Gambling Sector

While RG advocates generally appreciate the Act’s effort to address problem gambling, they have some reservations. Keith Whyte, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG), noted that the bill shows a growing recognition of the sector as a public health issue. However, he’s concerned that its implementation might fall short.

Brianne Doura-Schawohl, a DC-based RG consultant, praised the inclusion of organizations like SAMHSA and the CDC, which have a strong track record in handling public health issues. But she also pointed out that the bill focuses solely on sports betting, which doesn’t cover the full spectrum of gaming-related harm. According to Doura-Schawohl, addiction is complex, and focusing federal attention on just one type of gambling could have unintended consequences.

Potential Unintended Consequences

Over the last few months, the NCAA has been pushing US jurisdictions to ban prop bets on college players. Some states already had such prohibitions, while others have since joined them. The NCAA insists that banning these bet types will limit the harassment college athletes face, but regulators disagree. Operators also support such critics, saying that the prohibition of live and prop betting could drive consumers to offshore and unregulated platforms.

Industry consultant Brendan Bussmann believes the Act would actually benefit the black market for sports betting. He pointed out that limiting legal betting options would push consumers toward alternatives with fewer protections, making it even harder to address problem gambling.

The Act also introduces new regulations, like a national self-exclusion list and stricter advertising rules, which could place more burdens on operators without improving consumer protection. Some fear that these measures could cause more harm than good.

If a national program is to be launched, operators will be required to set aside a significant amount of revenue for problem gambling. In comparison, today, each jurisdiction imposes a percentage of gaming tax revenue for such purposes. Gaming and betting sites, on the other hand, invest money to develop RG tools.