US Senate Judiciary Committee Debates Gambling Oversight

The US Senate Judiciary Committee convened this week to scrutinize the rapid expansion of legalized sports gambling in a hearing titled “America’s High-Stakes Bet on Legalized Sports Gambling.” However, the proceedings leaned heavily toward concerns about the industry's impact, lacking direct input from gaming operators.

The Hearing: A One-Sided Discussion

The committee's hearing, held against the backdrop of the proposed SAFE Bet Act, excluded representatives from the gaming industry. Joe Maloney, SVP of Strategic Communications for the American Gaming Association (AGA), criticized this absence, stating it left the discussion incomplete. Maloney emphasized that the industry has actively worked to protect consumers, promote responsible gambling, and uphold sports integrity through state-level regulations.

The SAFE Bet Act, introduced by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, seeks to establish federal oversight, superseding state regulations. Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin highlighted the risks of online sports betting, including its accessibility and the potential for addiction. Durbin expressed concerns about the industry's role in preventing gambling-related harm, calling for operators to take greater responsibility.

Witnesses supported federal intervention but did not advocate for banning sports betting outright. NCAA President Charlie Baker, for instance, urged a ban on prop bets for college athletes to protect them from harassment. He cited surveys revealing that 10-15% of Division I athletes have faced threats from bettors. Similarly, Johnson Bademosi of the NFL Players Association called for measures to prevent “negative bets” and safeguard athlete data.

The hearing also focused on the public health implications of gambling addiction. Keith Whyte of the National Council on Problem Gambling and Dr. Harry Levant, a former gambling addict, criticized the industry's reliance on technology and AI to promote constant betting. Levant likened the current sports gambling landscape to a “nonstop slot machine,” calling for stricter federal oversight.

Despite these criticisms, former New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement Director David Rebuck defended state-led regulation, arguing that states are already addressing challenges like problem gambling through partnerships and best practices. The SAFE Bet Act received a lukewarm response from witnesses. Levant supported the bill fully, while others, like Baker and Bademosi, endorsed specific elements. Whyte advocated for a different bill—the Gambling Addiction Recovery Investment and Treatment Act—which reallocates federal excise taxes to state health agencies.

We are presently witnessing the early years of a public health crisis, and the time is now for Congress to act.

Conclusion

Rebuck strongly opposed federal oversight, citing the Supreme Court's 2018 decision to allow states to regulate sports betting. He argued that state frameworks have proven effective and should remain the standard.

While the hearing highlighted significant concerns about the growth of legalized sports gambling, the lack of industry representation left the discussion unbalanced. The debate underscores a broader tension between state autonomy and federal oversight in regulating a rapidly evolving industry. As Congress considers its next steps, the gaming industry's role in addressing addiction and consumer protection will remain under scrutiny.