Lawmakers Gamble on Online Gaming

Is a federal framework possible, or do the casinos always win?

Caleb ClifforD

The United States sports gambling industry has exploded since Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA) in 2018.[1] With ballooning advertising budgets, big sportsbooks such as FanDuel and DraftKings have poured billions of dollars into spreading mobile sports gambling across the nation.[2] Beyond just commercials, gambling content is now integrated directly into sports broadcasts thanks to partnerships with ESPN and major sports leagues.[3]

Sports betting revenues continue to grow, increasing 72.7% over last year to reach $7.5 billion as mobile sports betting becomes legal in more states and more popular in states where it was already legalized.[4] In this new culture, additional regulations are required to protect consumers and ensure the integrity of the sports they bet on. This is easier said than done, as the current legislative landscape for gambling in the U.S. consists of different laws in all 50 states, in addition to regulation at the federal level.

Differences among state laws have created challenges for gambling operators and players, who find themselves subject to different rules and regulations depending on where they reside. Additionally, the lack of uniform regulation has made it more difficult for gambling operators to comply with all applicable laws when doing business across state lines. Although the Supreme Court’s ruling in Murphy gave power to the states to dictate their own legislation on sports wagering, this decision has not provided protections for bettors in states that currently lack legislation related to sports betting.

This article will compare some of the most common schemes in place across states today, highlighting both strengths and potential pitfalls. Alternative legislative solutions should be considered to help address these issues and promote a more consistent application of online gaming regulations across the country. Finally, potential solutions can be crafted by borrowing ideas from foreign gambling laws and current domestic legislation on alcohol and securities trading.

History

Gambling has long been one of America’s principal vices. What was once limited to early lotteries and horse race wagering has evolved with technological advances and the increased appetite for sports content across the country.[5] In the original colonies, lotteries often funded the development of churches and universities, with George Washington and Ben Franklin sponsoring some lottery projects themselves.[6] However, religious differences led some pilgrims to “establish punishments ranging from substantial fines to whipping” for gambling, which they deemed a sin.[7]

Fast forward to 1949, when Nevada legalized sports wagering over a decade after legalizing most other types of gambling.[8] By the 1950s, the federal government had experimented with various taxes on sports bets, but due to the influence of organized crime, Congress felt more regulation was needed.[9] Modern sports betting regulations in the U.S. took shape following the introduction of a patchwork of federal laws including the Interstate Wire Act of 1961, or Wire Act; the aforementioned PASPA; and the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or UIGEA.

To stifle the involvement of organized crime in sports betting, the Wire Act made it illegal to pass sports gambling information across state lines via electronic wires.[10] The UIGEA targets payment processors who enable online betting with U.S. gamblers by forbidding financial institutions from processing transactions connected to illegal wagering.[11] Among other shortcomings, the UIGEA fails to define what constitutes unlawful gambling and contains a variety of exemptions, including one for “fantasy or simulation sports game[s],” which, in part, created an opening for the explosion of the daily fantasy sports industry.[12] A daily fantasy sports game is a type of online contest in which participants draft virtual teams of real-life athletes and compete against each other based on the statistical performance of those athletes in real-world games that day or over a specified time period. Participants may pay an entry fee to enter the contest and can win cash prizes based on the performance of their virtual team.[13]

In the 1990s, professional sports leagues in the U.S. began to ask Congress to ban sports wagering. While today almost every major sports league has a betting partner, most leagues steadfastly opposed sports gambling because they believed it would create an environment of match fixing and corruption.[14] These attitudes eventually culminated in the passing of PASPA.[15] PASPA declared it unlawful to sponsor, operate, advertise or promote “a lottery, sweepstakes, or other betting, gambling or wagering scheme” based on competitive sports or on “one or more performances of such athletes in such games.”[16]

PASPA effectively banned sports wagering entirely, apart from an exemption for a few states created by section 3704 of the statute. These exempted states, such as Nevada, had already explicitly allowed sports betting in their respective laws.[17] Only Nevada law included provisions for single-game wagers, and thus the state became the country’s sports gambling stronghold.[18]

In 2018, the Supreme Court held in Murphy that PASPA was unconstitutional because it violated the anti-commandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment.[19] Murphy came in an era where states were eager to pounce on potential tax revenues and the stigma surrounding sports gambling had waned, in part due to the rise of daily fantasy sports games.[20]

The Murphy decision opened the floodgates for states to create their own schemes and regulations for intrastate sports betting. In the wake of Murphy, roughly two-thirds of states have legalized some form of sports betting, and just under half allow for mobile sports betting via smartphone or computer.[21] However, due to the Wire Act, a bettor in a state like California, where sports betting remains illegal, cannot place a bet online though a sportsbook in a state where sports betting is legal, like Nevada, because most forms of interstate sports betting remain illegal.[22]

Regulatory Models

After the Supreme Court opened the floodgates with the Murphy decision, states were given the freedom to create and enact their own regulatory frameworks concerning sports wagering. As of January 31, 2023, mobile sports betting is live and legal in 23 states and the District of Columbia, legalized but not yet operational in three states, actively on the ballot in 11 states, and has spurred no legislation in 13 states.[23] However, just because mobile sports betting is legalized in any two states does not mean that those two states will allow the same types of wagers to be placed by the same bettors. Mobile sports betting apps access user location data, forcing bettors to physically cross state lines to lock in their desired bet in accordance with state age and signup requirements, as well as variable regulations on when and how bettors can wager in college games.[24] Despite the numerous inconsistencies between state policies, most states tend to fall into a few different regulatory models.

States Where Mobile Sports Betting Is Not Legalized

A minority of states, including Texas and California, have chosen not to legalize mobile sports wagering at all despite efforts by gambling industry lobbyists and pro-gambling Native American tribes.[25] Voters and politicians in these states express strong concern for morality and potential negative social effects associated with online sports betting.[26] Critics of these systems say that, without legalization, legislatures leave residents with no other option but to turn to illegal markets or drive across state lines if they want to place a bet, depriving the state of potential tax revenues.[27]

Other states have not moved into the market due to the prevalence of casinos operated by Native American tribes and the potential for violation of existing tribal compacts.[28] In the same vein, California voters rejected Proposition 27 in 2022, which would have allowed licensed tribes with tribal-state compacts, as well as certain licensed gambling companies partnered with tribes, to operate online sports wagering outside tribal lands.[29] The measure was intended to increase tax revenues and provide funding for housing programs, but many tribes denounced the proposal due to the high licensing fees and a desire to keep gambling power away from gaming companies like FanDuel, DraftKings and BetMGM.[30] In the same election, California voters also rejected Proposition 26, which would have allowed sports wagering and dice games on tribal lands.[31]

States Where Mobile Sports Betting Is Legal With Restrictions

Other states have opted for a more intermediate approach to the introduction of mobile sports betting. States including Arkansas, Illinois, Delaware, New Hampshire, Mississippi, Indiana and Iowa offer limited access to mobile sports betting, and some of these states also limit the types of wagers available for play.[32] Some of these limitations include bans on live in-game wagering for college sporting events that are being played by in-state colleges and some proposition, or prop, bets on college sporting events. A prop bet involves wagering on a specific occurrence within a game that is not directly related to the final score or outcome. A live bet refers to the practice of betting on a game that is already underway, unlike traditional bets that are made prior to the start of a game.[33] In theory, limiting live in-game prop bets helps eliminate some risk that a collegiate athlete would alter their own performance, for example, by not getting a certain number of rebounds in a basketball game, in order to cash in on a prop bet made against themselves.

College athletes are often seen as easy targets for illegal match-fixing schemes because they are not compensated like professional athletes.[34] Match fixing is the intentional manipulation of a sporting event for financial gain by placing wagers on the event and simultaneously influencing its outcome or other aspects of the competition.[35] One example is point shaving, in which players collude to score a certain number of points.  It is hard to get an exact figure on the rate of these schemes in sports, but there has never been a confirmed point-shaving scandal in the NFL or the NBA.[36] The NBA is not totally immune from match fixing, however, as referee Tim Donaghy was caught tipping off bettors about players' physical condition and referee relations in 2008, resulting in a 15-month prison sentence for his participation in the resulting gambling scandal.[37]

In college, on the other hand, there has been at least one case of players colluding to alter game outcomes every decade since the 1950s.[38] This includes a point-shaving scandal at Boston College, where mafia members bribed basketball players to ensure the team scored a certain number of points. Likewise, student-athletes at the University of Toledo accepted payments for as little as $500 to influence the final score of both football and basketball games.[39]

States Open to Almost All Mobile Sports Betting

Other states, including Nevada, Wyoming and Kansas, have opted for even fewer restrictions when it comes to mobile sports betting.[40] Such states require no restrictions for bets on in-state college athletics.[41] In New Jersey, the accessibility offered to bettors through online mediums available from any location within the state has created explosive growth of online sports betting in the state.[42] Neither physical presence on the premises of the bookmaker nor in-person account registration is necessary for bettors to place sports wagers, meaning bettors can place wagers any time their phones have a charge and internet connection.

As states move forward and endeavor to regulate the sports gambling industry, they must take several factors into account. A state’s desire for sports betting revenues may influence decisions to permit mobile wagering outside of casinos. For instance, New Jersey shows that wagering on mobile devices attracts considerably more interest than wagering in brick-and-mortar establishments.[43] However, it might be more difficult to restrict access to mobile gambling for minors, as they may be able to avoid the barrier of proving their age before placing a bet.

Towards a Federal Framework

The tidal wave of online sports wagering has generated massive amounts of revenue for the states.[44] However, not all states have been able to cure the potential issues associated with gambling.  Before I dive into these issues in the next section, I will first provide a brief overview of a failed federal framework in the U.S. and a comparison to a successful nationwide framework in the United Kingdom.  This will help contextualize the legislative challenges while offering potential solutions.

Proposed U.S. Legislation

In addition to state-level initiatives, there have been recent endeavors to introduce federal legislation aimed at regulating the mobile gambling industry and safeguarding consumers. Sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch and Chuck Schumer, the Sports Wagering Market Integrity Act of 2018, or SWMIA, was introduced following the Supreme Court's decision in Murphy.[45] The Act died in committee, but SWMIA aimed to create a framework for legal sports betting at the federal level, with states being required to pass their own sports gambling law and submit it for review by the U.S. Attorney General to participate.[46]

The legislation included provisions that prohibit the use of nonpublic information for betting purposes and establish punishments for match fixing.[47] The proposed bill also mandated the creation of a “National Sports Wagering Clearinghouse” to monitor and detect suspicious betting activity.[48] The proposed clearinghouse would “operate a national repository of anonymized sports wagering data” and alert states and sports leagues of suspicious betting activity.[49] The hypothetical non-profit organization behind the clearinghouse would  also disseminate information and best practices for dealing with gambling addiction, responsible gambling and match fixing.[50]  While individual states can contribute to monitoring the industry, a federal organization is better equipped to do so, and the legislation would have relieved sports leagues of some of their responsibility to privately protect the integrity of their sports.[51] 

The United Kingdom

Mobile sports gambling has become a global phenomenon, with countries around the world facing similar regulatory challenges. While the U.S. has taken steps to address these issues through proposed bills in various states, other countries have implemented their own approaches to tackle these concerns. From education and awareness campaigns to strict regulations and penalties, countries such as the United Kingdom have made significant strides in preventing and treating problem gambling and combatting match fixing. The various approaches taken by these countries, as well as proposed legislation at the state level, can provide a roadmap for how to address each of these issues better.

In the U.K., sports gambling is a popular pastime that is tightly regulated by government agencies. With a long history of sports betting, the U.K. has developed a comprehensive framework of laws and regulations to ensure that gambling is conducted fairly and responsibly. In the U.K., the legality and regulation of all forms of gambling fall under the purview of the Gambling Commission.[52] This independent organization was created in 2005 and reports directly to Parliament, addressing the proliferation of online gambling and the unique cultural landscape of the country.[53] Its key responsibilities include issuing licenses to gambling operators, monitoring compliance with gambling laws and enforcing anti-money-laundering regulations.[54]

In the United States, inconsistencies in internet sports betting could potentially create an unequal playing field for citizens, leaving some without proper protections. The lack of uniformity in regulations leaves residents in states without mobile sports betting laws with no option but to use illegal, offshore sportsbooks. This situation is problematic because illegal offshore bookmakers are not subject to the same regulations and consumer protection laws as legal, regulated sportsbooks. This lack of oversight can lead to a higher risk of fraud and scams, putting bettors' money at risk and keeping potential tax revenues away from states. To address these disparities, a centralized commission like the U.K.'s could prove beneficial in establishing a standardized set of regulations that ensures equal protection for all citizens regardless of their states of residence. This would provide much-needed stability and consistency in the industry and safeguard consumers from potential exploitation. However, the issue of the federal government’s involvement in gambling has long been a subject of debate due to its lack of constitutional authorization.

This centralized commission could take the form of a national clearinghouse, like that proposed in SWMIA. One of the primary benefits of a clearinghouse is that it could create a centralized system for collecting and sharing data on sports betting activity across different states. This could help identify and prevent fraudulent activity, monitor for signs of problem gambling and provide insights into how the industry is evolving.

Additionally, a clearinghouse could facilitate coordination between different state enforcement agencies, helping to create a more unified and consistent approach to sports betting regulation across the country. By working together, regulators could more effectively share best practices, identify emerging issues and coordinate enforcement efforts. Another potential benefit of a federal clearinghouse is that it could provide a more secure and reliable platform for processing sports betting transactions. By creating a standardized system for verifying identities, ensuring the integrity of bets and settling disputes, a clearinghouse could help build trust among consumers and make it easier for legal sportsbooks to compete with illegal offshore ones. Such a federal system would likely need to provide states with the opportunity to opt out from the regulations to avoid the same commandeering pitfalls that doomed PASPA in Murphy.

Key Issues Going Forward

There are three key issues associated with the proliferation of online gambling that state legislation has mostly been unable to solve. They are addiction, underage gambling and courtsiding.  I will analyze these issues one by one and discuss possible solutions.

Underage Gambling

The legal age for gambling ranges from 18 to 21 depending on the state. However, between 60% and 80% of high school students report having gambled for money in the past year, and 4% to 6% of high schoolers are considered addicted to gambling.[55]  While drug and alcohol addiction is more prevalent in the U.S. than gambling addiction, states allocate almost 318 times more funding for drug and alcohol services than for gambling services.[56] Despite the number of children at risk, none of the annual federal gambling tax revenue is used to support efforts to prevent or treat gambling addiction.[57] Additionally, no federal government agency oversees addressing and treating problem gambling.[58]

Virginia has taken aim at this issue with House Bill 1108. Signed into law in April 2022, it became the first state law in the country requiring all public schools to teach students about the risks of gambling.[59] The law requires the Virginia Board of Education to develop and distribute to all school divisions educational materials on gambling as part of the existing curriculum on substance misuse.[60] While the bill is underfunded according to some, it still represents concrete action. [61] Similar legislation in West Virginia and Maryland did not make it out of committee.[62]

Likewise, North Carolina and Wisconsin have introduced short, voluntary programs to educate students about the risks of problem gambling in which students “learn about the probability theory and other aspects of gambling through role-playing, designing posters and producing videos with gambling prevention messages.”[63]

The U.S. sports betting industry could see significant changes if the Betting on our Future Act, introduced on February 9, 2023 by New York Representative Paul Tonko, becomes law.[64] The proposed legislation aims to treat sports betting like cigarettes, banning all advertisements on any medium in the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission.[65] Limitations on gambling advertisements could help curb underage gambling, as studies have confirmed young people exposed to gambling ads think more positively about gambling, leading to their “participation, intentions and problems” with gambling.[66]

Additional inspiration can be drawn from the proposed Gaming Accountability and Modernization Enhancement, or GAME, Act of 2017.[67] While this bill was introduced before the Murphy decision, there are still a few sections that could be used as guidance that are relevant to addressing the current issues of underage mobile sports betting. Section 2(a)(3) requires “[a]ppropriate safeguards to ensure, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that an individual placing a bet or wager is not under the minimum legal age for placing such a bet or wager established by the State.”[68] Meanwhile, section 3 makes it “unlawful for any person to accept a credit card payment as a method of age verification for placing any bet or wager.”[69]

Gambling Addiction

Gambling addiction is a growing concern in the United States, particularly with the rise of mobile sports betting.[70] With the convenience and accessibility of placing bets through smartphones and tablets, many individuals are at risk of developing a gambling addiction or experiencing negative consequences from gambling.[71] While some may view gambling as a harmless pastime, it can lead to financial difficulties, strained relationships and mental health issues.[72] Different states have addressed this issue by implementing various strategies to prevent and treat problem gambling, ranging from education and awareness campaigns to offering resources for those seeking help.[73]

Twenty-one jurisdictions require online gaming providers to create and submit for approval a comprehensive plan for tackling responsible gaming issues.[74] Public awareness campaigns and staff training are frequently necessary plan components.[75] Thirty-four states demand that sports betting companies implement self-exclusion programs, allowing users to block themselves from mobile or online gaming sites and allowing operators to kick out users who have self-blocked.[76] Thirty jurisdictions place explicit limitations on the manner or content of gambling advertising.[77] Twenty-eight states prohibit or restrict the use of complimentary gambling credits provided by online sportsbook operators.[78] Twenty-eight jurisdictions have codified pledges to support problem gambling research, education services and treatment.[79]

Dram shop laws, which hold alcohol-serving establishments liable for the actions of intoxicated patrons, could potentially be applied to mobile sports betting operators. In the case of mobile sports betting, the operator could be held liable for continuing to allow someone who is addicted to gambling or losing substantial amounts of money to place bets on their platform. Arguably, sportsbook operators have a responsibility to intervene and restrict access when users with gambling problems reach the point where they are unable to control their own behavior.  By allowing such users to continue betting, operators may be enabling harmful behavior and contributing to the users’ financial losses.

Applying dram shop laws to mobile sports betting could provide a legal framework to hold operators accountable for their actions and potentially help prevent or mitigate the negative consequences of problem gambling. The California Business and Professions Code § 25602(a) states that any person, including a business, who sells, gives or provides alcohol to “any habitual or common drunkard or to any obviously intoxicated person is guilty of a misdemeanor.”[80]

While criminal liability may not be the most effective course of action, a similar law could create civil liability up to a certain amount for sportsbooks that continue to allow a problem gambler to deposit money on their platform. Sportsbooks already use high-powered analytics to “identify addictive traits through behavioral profiling” and target “high-risk gamblers with marketing and other promotional schemes to draw them back to the platform,”[81] so it may be difficult for establishments to claim they cannot tell which users should be cut off.[DD40]  

Courtsiding

Courtsiding is a practice in which individuals attend live sports events and relay real-time information to gamblers, a growing concern in the world of mobile sports betting.[82] With the advent of mobile devices, courtsiders can transmit information faster than ever before, giving gamblers an unfair advantage over bookmakers. This can lead to the manipulation of odds and outcomes, potentially compromising the integrity of the practice. To address this issue, states have attempted to implement various strategies with little success, ranging from imposing criminal penalties for courtsiding to implementing stricter security measures at sporting events. The goal is to ensure that mobile sports betting remains fair and transparent for all involved.

New York lawmakers attempted to give stadium officials more power to police their crowds for potential courtsiders with 2020’s Senate Bill S17D.[83] The bill died in committee but would have granted “persons who present sporting contests” the authority “to remove spectators and others from any facility” for betting violations.[84] In Michigan, 2019’s House Bill 4916 initially included language prohibiting a sportsbook’s use of data collected by “live event attendees…in violation of the terms of admittance to an event,” but the language was removed in the final version of the bill.[85] There are questions about whether such a restriction on the dissemination of news would violate the First Amendment. Ryan Rodenberg, an associate professor at Florida State University, stated that recent lobbying efforts are not enactable or enforceable because newsgathering is protected under the First Amendment.[86]

Insider trading laws are typically associated with the stock market, but the same principles could potentially apply to sports betting as well. As demonstrated by the Dirks v. SEC case in 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that tippees can be held liable for securities fraud if they receive insider information from tippers who breached fiduciary duties by providing it.[87] The Court established that such a breach occurs when the tipper obtains a personal benefit in exchange for the information.[88]

In the context of sports betting, a tipper could be someone who has inside information about a game or event that could affect the outcome, and a tippee could be someone who receives that information and uses it to make a bet. If the tipper shares the information in exchange for some type of personal benefits, such as a share of the winnings, this would be analogous to an insider trading violation. Applying these same principles to sports betting could help to ensure fairness and integrity in the industry and deter individuals from engaging in illicit activities. However, it would require careful consideration and potentially new legislation to ensure that these laws are effectively enforced in the context of sports betting.

If lawmakers treat courtsiding as a form of insider trading, individuals who engage in this practice could face criminal prosecution and penalties similar to those seen in the stock market. This could help to deter this type of activity and ensure a level playing field for all sports bettors.

Legislation aimed at prohibiting the use of confidential or nonpublic information in sports betting has been proposed or passed in several states including Massachusetts, New Jersey, Tennessee, Indiana and New York.[89] Furthermore, SWMIA would have made it illegal for anyone to place or accept a bet based on material nonpublic information, which closely resembles insider trading regulations.[90] Finding harmony between these different regulations may be difficult, but should at least include federally mandated minimum requirements upon which states can develop and tailor their laws to their constituencies.

Conclusion

The advent of mobile sports betting has brought new challenges, such as gambling addiction and match fixing, which require legal attention. States have responded to this challenge with varying degrees of success. While some have successfully implemented frameworks to regulate sports betting, others have struggled.

The best action for the United States would be to adopt a system of federal oversight, taking inspiration from the U.K.’s successful model. Such oversight would provide uniform regulation and monitoring of the industry while respecting states' rights to opt in or out of federal gambling policies. A federal clearinghouse to maintain records of sports betting data and suspicious transactions, as suggested in the SWMIA, as well as a federal ban on betting with wrongfully obtained nonpublic information, could go a long way toward ensuring the integrity of the industry. By implementing federal oversight, the U.S. can provide a safe and secure environment for sports betting, benefiting both the industry and consumers.

About the author

Caleb Clifford (’24) worked with professional and collegiate athletes in a number of roles during his undergrad at the University of Miami. He spent this past summer in Los Angeles at sports law firm Athlaw LLP, where he will return next year.

[1] Christian Thorsberg, Sports betting — a hugely popular, multibillion-dollar industry — is poised to become an American epidemic, Grid (Sept. 8, 2022), https://www.grid.news/story/economy/2022/09/08/sports-betting-a-hugely-popular-multibillion-dollar-industry-is-poised-to-become-an-american-epidemic/.

[2] Alex Silverman, For U.S. Sports Bettors, It’s FanDuel and DraftKings — and Then Everyone Else, Morning Consult (Jan. 20, 2022), https://morningconsult.com/2022/01/20/sports-betting-brands-usage-fanduel-draftkings/.

[3] Ed Hammond and Crystal Tse, ESPN Nears Large New Partnership With DraftKings, ESPN (Oct. 6, 2022), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-06/espn-said-to-be-near-large-new-partnership-with-draftkings.

[4] Commercial Gaming Revenue Tracker, Am. Gaming (Mar. 15, 2023), https://www.americangaming.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/CGRT_CY_2022_Report.pdf.

[5] Brett Smiley, A History of Sports Betting in the United States: Gambling Laws and Outlaws, Sports Handle (Nov. 13, 2017), https://sportshandle.com/gambling-laws-legislation-united-states-history/.  

[6] Roger Dunstan, Gambling in California (1997).

[7] Ed Crews, Apple-Pie American and Older than the Mayflower, Colonial Williamsburg (2008), https://research.colonialwilliamsburg.org/Foundation/journal/Autumn08/gamble.cfm.

[8] History of Gaming in Nevada, Nev. Resorts(last visited Mar. 26, 2023), https://www.nevadaresorts.org/about/history/.

[9] Supra, Note 5.

[10] Michelle Minton, The Original Intent of the Wire Act and Its Implications for State-based Legalization of Internet Gambling, Cntr. Gaming Rsch. (Sept. 2014), https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=occ_papers.

[11] Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 Overview, FDIC (last visited: Feb. 27, 2023), https://www.fdic.gov/news/financial-institution-letters/2010/fil10035a.pdf.

[12] 31 U.S. Code § 5362(1)(e)(ix).

[13] Christian Rigg, What are daily fantasy sports, techradar (Mar. 26, 2020), https://www.techradar.com/news/what-are-daily-fantasy-sports.

[14] David Chen, The N.F.L.’s About-Face on Sports Gambling, N.Y. Times  (Feb. 10, 2022).https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/10/sports/nfl-bets-gambling.

[15] PAPSA Law Explained: Why It Was Ruled Unconstitutional, Betting USA.com (last visited: Feb. 27, 2023), https://www.bettingusa.com/laws/paspa/.

[16] 28 U.S. Code § 3702(2).

[17] Id. at § 3704.

[18] The granddaddy of them all: Sports betting has been legal in Nevada since 1949, USA Today (last visited Feb. 27, 2023), https://sportsdata.usatoday.com/legality-map/nevada.

[19] Murphy v. NCAA, 138 S. Ct. 1461 (2018) at 1478.

[20] Brent Fritzemeier, Study finds that participation in fantasy sports relates to higher levels of sports betting, online gambling, K-State News (Nov. 14, 2018), https://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/2018-11/fantasysports111418.html

[21] Will Yakowicz, Where Is Sports Betting Legal? A Guide To All 50 States, Forbes (Jan. 9, 2023), https://www.forbes.com/sites/willyakowicz/2023/01/09/where-is-sports-betting-legal-america-2022/?sh=19b8dae8386b.

[22] 18 U.S. Code § 1084(a).

[23] CBS Sports Staff, U.S. sports betting: Here’s where all 50 states stand on legalizing sports gambling, betting mobile bets, CBS Sports (Feb. 22, 2023), https://www.cbssports.com/general/news/u-s-sports-betting-heres-where-all-50-states-stand-on-legalizing-sports-gambling-betting-mobile-bets/.

[24] Christopher Palmeri, New Jersey’s Train Stations Are Turning Into Gambling Hubs for New Yorkers, TIME (Jan. 6, 2020), https://time.com/5759895/new-jersey-sports-betting/.

[25] Guy Marzorati, California voters reject measures to legalize sports betting, NPR (Nov. 9, 2022), https://www.npr.org/2022/11/09/1133986282/california-gambling-prop-26-27-midterm-results.

[26] Michael Sciangula, Texas Sports Betting — Legal Mobile Sportsbook, Timeline, and Updates 2023, Sports Handle (Feb. 21, 2023), https://sportshandle.com/texas/.

[27] Why would sports betting be legal?, Rotowire Sports Betting (last visited: Feb. 27, 2023), https://www.rotowire.com/betting/faq/why-should-sports-betting-be-legal-b796c640.

[28] Raymond Welch and Greg Sarris, Online gambling measure would hurt Indian tribes, Cal Matters (Feb. 7, 2022), https://calmatters.org/commentary/2022/02/online-gambling-measure-would-hurt-indian-tribes/.

[29] California Legislative Analyst's Office, Ballot Analysis: Proposition 27 (2022), https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=27&year=2022 (last visited Apr. 12, 2023).

[30] Liz Kreutz, California sports betting: Prop 26, 27 are both projected to fail, AP reports, ABC (Oct. 12, 2022), https://abc30.com/california-sports-betting-prop-26-27-legalized-gambling/12201602/: Supra, note 28.

[31] California Legislative Analyst's Office, Ballot Analysis: Proposition 26 (2022), https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=26&year=2022 (last visited April 12, 2023).

[32] Matthew Waters, Legislative Tracker: Sports Betting, LSR (Feb. 17, 2023), https://www.legalsportsreport.com/sportsbetting-bill-tracker/.

[33] Devon Platana, What Is A Prop Bet?, Forbes (Mar. 8 2023), https://www.forbes.com/betting/guide/prop-bet/#:~:text=A%20prop%20(or%20proposition)%20bet,anthem%20at%20the%20Super%20Bowl.

[34] Maryclaire Dale, NCAA asks US appeals court to block pay for student-athletes, Washington Post (Feb. 15, 2023), https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/ncaa-asks-us-appeals-court-to-block-pay-for-student-athletes/2023/02/15/3ab90f74-ad8c-11ed-b0ba-9f4244c6e5da_story.html.

[35] Tifo Football, An Introduction to Matchfixing in Football, Youtube (Apr. 8, 2021), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdkNapb2Axk/.

[36] Shrot, Point Shaving In The NFL (All You Need To Know), AM. Sports Planet (Aug. 17, 2022), https://americansportsplanet.com/point-shaving-in-the-nfl-all-you-need-to-know/: The History of Point Shaving in Basketball, NBA Hoops Online, https://nbahoopsonline.com/Articles/2017-18/pointshaving.html (last visited Mar. 25, 2023).

[37] Id.

[38] Steve Ruddock, Timeline of Major Sports Betting Scandals, Betting USA (July 2, 2020), https://www.bettingusa.com/timeline-sports-betting-scandals/#the-2010s-a-trio-of-ncaab-scandals.

[39] Mike Fish, Six ex-players charged with conspiracy, ESPN (May 6, 2009), https://www.espn.com/college-sports/news/story?id=4146980.

[40] Supra, note 32. 

[41] Id.

[42] New Jersey Gambling Revenue: America’s #1 Sports Betting Market, SBD (June 16, 2022), https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/us/new-jersey/sports-betting-revenue/.

[43] Alan Meister and Gene Johnson, Economic Impact of New Jersey Online Gaming: Further Lessons Learned, Dev. & Econ. Assn. (Oct. 2019), https://ideagrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Economic-impact-online-gaming-NJ-2019.pdf.

[44] Supra, note 4.

[45] Sports Wagering Market Integrity Act of 2018. S.3793, 115th Cong. (2018).

[46] David Klein, Once Upon a Federal Sports Gambling Bill, Lexology (May 7, 2021), https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=182f6758-08b0-4ef8-b6c5-63d2adf0569d.

[47] Supra, note 45.

[48] David Purdum and Ryan Rodenberg, What you need to know about the new federal sports betting bill, ESPN (Dec. 20, 2018), https://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/25581529/what-need-know-sports-wagering-market-integrity-act-swmia-2018.

[49] Supra, note 45. 

[50] Id.    

[51] Supra, note 48.

[52] Carl Rohsler, The Gambling Law Review: United Kingdom, Law Reviews (May 9, 2022), https://thelawreviews.co.uk/title/the-gambling-law-review/united-kingdom.

[53] Id.

[54] Id.

[55] Marsha Mercer, As Sports Betting Grows, States Tackle Teenage Problem Gambling, Pew Trusts (July 12, 2022), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/07/12/as-sports-betting-grows-states-tackle-teenage-problem-gambling.

[56] Id.

[57] Id.

[58] Id.

[59] Va. H.B. 1108 (2022).

[60] Id.

[61] Jeremy Balan, Virginia Passed A Gambling Addiction Education Bill, But Why Have Others Stalled?, Sports Handle (Apr. 1, 2022), https://sportshandle.com/virginia-gambling-addiction-education-bill-others-stalled/.

[62] Id.

[63] Robert Williams and Robert Wood, A Program to Prevent Problem Gambling (2010), https://www.hazelden.org/HAZ_MEDIA/7931_stackeddeck.pdf.

[64] Tonko Introduces Legislation to Ban Predatory Sports Betting Advertising, Tonko House.gov (Feb. 9, 2023), https://tonko.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3800#:~:text=Tonko%20(D%2DNY)%20introduced,to%20watch%20the%20Super%20Bowl.

[65] Id.

[66] How much do young people gamble?, NSW Gov’t. (last visited: Feb. 28, 2023), https://www.gambleaware.nsw.gov.au/learn-about-gambling/gambling-and-young-people.

[67] The GAME Act, H.R.453, 115th Cong. (2017). https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4530.

[68] Id.

[69] Id.

[70] Stephen March, AMERICA’S GAMBLING ADDICTION IS METASTASIZING, Atlantic (Nov. 26, 2021), https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/world-our-casino/620791/.

[71] Meghan Gunn, These Are the Real Dangers of the Sports Betting Boom for Young Men, Newsweek (Mar. 22, 2023), https://www.newsweek.com/2023/04/07/sports-betting-boom-linked-rising-gambling-addiction-anxiety-suicide-1789055.html.

[72] Compulsive Gambling, Mayo Clinic (last visited Mar. 26, 2023), https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/compulsive-gambling/symptoms-causes/syc-20355178#:~:text=Gambling%20can%20stimulate%20the%20brain's,fraud%20to%20support%20your%20addiction.

[73] Stephen Elliott, States Are Learning on the Fly About Sports Betting Addiction, PEW (Mar. 22, 2023), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2023/03/22/states-are-learning-on-the-fly-about-sports-betting-addiction.

[74] Responsible Gaming Regulations and Statutes Guide, Am. Gaming (Sept. 1, 2022), https://www.americangaming.org/resources/responsible-gaming-regulations-and-statutes-guide/.

[75] Id.

[76] Id.

[77] Id.

[78] Id.

[79] Id.

[80] Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 25602(a) (2022).

[81] Luke Goldstein, Rollups: The Big Data Machine Driving Online Sports Betting, Am. Prospect (Apr. 4, 2022), https://prospect.org/power/rollups-big-data-machine-driving-online-sports-betting/.

[82] Simon Cox, Why tennis 'courtsiding' was my dream job, BBC (Apr. 22, 2015), https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32402945.

[83] NY SB17D(7)(d)(i) (2020).

[84] Id.

[85] MI 2019 HB 4916.

[86] Matt Rybaltowski, As States Consider Anti-Courtsiding Measures, Debate on Transmission of Live Data Intensifies, Sports Handle (July 10, 2019), https://sportshandle.com/state-anti-courtsiding-measures/.

[87] Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983).

[88] Id.

[89] Supra, note 32. 

[90] Supra, note 45 § 302(b)(1).