Yuyun Lusiyani
New York, home to the nation’s largest sports betting market, has formally introduced two pivotal rules aimed at curbing gambling addiction within the state. This decisive move by the New York Gaming Commission places the Empire State at the forefront of a growing national movement seeking significant online gambling reforms, spurred by an alarming rise in addiction diagnoses and intensifying scrutiny over the industry’s "responsible gaming" practices. The proposed regulations, which have been under development for months, gained urgent momentum following a series of damning media investigations that exposed critical weaknesses in how major betting operators manage problem gamblers and utilize advanced technology to engage their user base.
The Proliferation of Legalized Sports Betting and Its Unforeseen Costs
The landscape of American gambling has undergone a dramatic transformation since the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision to overturn the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA). This landmark ruling effectively dismantled the federal prohibition on sports wagering, paving the way for individual states to legalize and regulate the industry. The subsequent years witnessed an explosion of new markets, with states eagerly embracing sports betting as a lucrative source of tax revenue and economic development.
New York quickly capitalized on this opportunity, launching mobile sports betting in January 2022. The state rapidly ascended to become the largest market in the U.S., consistently reporting billions in monthly wagering handle and generating substantial tax revenues that have exceeded initial projections. However, this explosive growth has not come without significant societal costs, primarily a concerning surge in gambling addiction. Data from organizations like EPIC Research indicates a more than 60% increase in gambling disorder diagnoses in states that have legalized sports betting. This alarming statistic underscores a critical paradox: while states benefit financially from expanded wagering, they are simultaneously grappling with a mounting public health fallout.
Online platforms, accessible 24/7 from any smartphone or computer, have made betting easier and more pervasive than ever before, blurring the lines between casual entertainment and compulsive behavior. Experts define gambling disorder as persistent and recurrent problematic gambling behavior leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, characterized by an increasing preoccupation with gambling, a need to bet with increasing amounts of money to achieve the desired excitement, and repeated unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back, or stop gambling. The ease of access, combined with aggressive marketing campaigns and sophisticated technological engagement strategies, has created a fertile ground for the escalation of these issues among a wider demographic.
A Timeline of Mounting Scrutiny and Regulatory Pressure
The path to New York’s new regulations is marked by a clear chronology of events, highlighting the increasing pressure on both state authorities and the gambling industry to address the burgeoning crisis.
- May 2018: The U.S. Supreme Court overturns PASPA, effectively ending the federal ban on sports wagering and empowering states to legalize and regulate sports betting within their borders.
- January 2022: New York officially launches mobile sports betting. The market quickly matures, attracting major operators and rapidly becoming the nation’s largest by wagering volume.
- Early 2023: Concerns about rising gambling addiction rates in legalized states begin to gain broader attention from public health advocates, lawmakers, and media outlets, who push for stronger consumer protections and more robust "responsible gaming" measures.
- March 2023: The New York Gaming Commission initially publishes draft rules pertaining to responsible gaming. Concurrently, Governor Kathy Hochul publicly calls for a renewed focus on addressing problem gambling, announcing a comprehensive 10-year statewide effort to assess gambling addiction and guide targeted investments in care and prevention.
- May 2023: The Responsible Online Gaming Association (ROGA), a prominent trade group representing major operators such as DraftKings and FanDuel, submits formal comments on the draft rules. While generally supportive of the framework, ROGA offers "targeted recommendations" aimed at refining the proposed regulations.
- September 2023: A series of highly impactful investigative reports from prominent media outlets critically expose significant shortcomings in the gambling industry’s self-professed "responsible gaming" measures and aggressive, often exploitative, marketing tactics.
- The New York Times publishes an investigation revealing that DraftKings, a leading sports betting company, utilized artificial intelligence and data scientists to specifically identify and target "losing bettors" with customized promotions. This strategy effectively encouraged continued play among those already experiencing financial losses, raising serious ethical questions about predatory marketing.
- ProPublica releases a detailed, immersive investigation demonstrating the inadequacy of existing "guardrails." A reporter, guided by addiction specialists and recovering addicts, purposefully exhibited hallmark signs of problem gambling on DraftKings’ platform, depositing $21,600 in less than eight weeks and betting compulsively. Despite this overt problematic behavior, the company’s "responsible gaming" system failed to trigger a formal review or meaningful interventions beyond generic notices and in-app pop-ups. In a particularly egregious finding, the journalist was even designated a "VIP," suggesting that increased engagement, regardless of its problematic nature, was rewarded.
- October 2023: In the wake of widespread public attention generated by these investigative reports, gambling regulators in other states, including Maine, Michigan, and Massachusetts, announce that they are reviewing similar issues raised in the investigations, particularly concerning the ethical use of AI in player engagement. Maryland’s Governor also publicly expresses a desire to limit AI use by gambling companies to identify and target problem gamblers.
- November 2023: New York’s Gambling Commission formally introduces the two proposed rules, accelerating their journey towards adoption. This official introduction underscores the direct link between intensified media scrutiny, public outcry, and decisive regulatory action.
New York’s Proposed Regulatory Framework: A Dual Approach to Player Protection
The rules formally advanced by the New York Gaming Commission represent a significant and assertive step in attempting to rebalance the scales between industry profitability and player protection. Commission Chair Brian O’Dwyer explicitly stated the industry is "on notice," delivering a stark warning that if operators fail to "solve this problem" on their own, regulators will impose solutions that the industry "may not like."
1. Standardizing Intervention: Adopting New Jersey’s Thresholds and Mandating Check-Ins.
One of the central tenets of the new regulations is the adoption of specific behavioral thresholds, mirroring guidelines already in use in neighboring New Jersey, to identify "at-risk" bettors. Once identified by these triggers, companies would be legally mandated to "check in" with these users, initiating a direct intervention process. The established quantitative thresholds include:
- Depositing more than $10,000 within a 24-hour period.
- Wagering more than $1 million within a 90-day period.
These benchmarks are designed to flag exceptionally high-volume or high-stakes play, often indicative of problematic gambling patterns. Furthermore, the proposed measures delve deeper into user behavior, requiring companies to conduct greater due diligence into a user’s "financial vulnerability" under certain qualitative conditions. For example, if a user’s time spent on an app jumps by 50% or more in a single week compared to the immediately preceding two-week average, it would trigger a mandatory review. This aims to catch more subtle but rapid escalations in engagement that could signal distress, even if monetary thresholds are not met.
2. Ethical AI: Barring Algorithmic Customization of Bonuses and Wagers.
The second crucial rule directly addresses the controversial and ethically fraught use of artificial intelligence in player engagement. It explicitly prohibits companies from employing AI to customize bonuses or wagers for individual users. This regulation is a direct and forceful response to concerns raised by reports from The New York Times and others, which revealed how sophisticated algorithms could be used to identify and exploit behavioral patterns, particularly among "losing bettors," to encourage continued play and maximize operator revenue. The ethical implications of using AI to potentially exacerbate problematic gambling are profound, bordering on predatory. By restricting this practice, New York aims to prevent the weaponization of data science against vulnerable individuals, compelling operators to adopt more generalized and less exploitative promotional strategies. This move acknowledges the power of modern data analytics and seeks to establish clear boundaries for its application in a sensitive sector.
Industry Reactions and Defensive Postures
The gambling industry’s response to these proposed regulations has been a complex mix of cautious acceptance, diplomatic engagement, and defensive justifications for existing practices.
DraftKings, one of the largest sports betting companies in the country and a frequent subject of recent media investigations, has consistently maintained that it already adheres to the New Jersey trigger thresholds, which form the basis of part of New York’s new rules. However, the company has vehemently defended its "responsible gaming" program, disputing any characterization that it targets addicts or those prone to addiction with inducements. Lori Kalani, DraftKings’ chief responsible gaming officer, stated in an interview with ProPublica that, during their investigative gambling experiment, "the system worked the way it was supposed to," citing the more than 30 messages sent to the reporter. She asserted that, as an industry, "we’re doing a good job of educating people, of raising awareness, of making tools and resources available, of monitoring accounts." Separately, DraftKings told The New York Times that it "rejects any implication that its marketing practices are unfair or improperly targets customers" and claimed its perks were delivered to "customers who demonstrated sustained, engaged use on our platform, not toward customers based on their losses." These statements highlight a fundamental disagreement between regulators and advocates on one side, and the industry on the other, regarding the efficacy, intent, and impact of current "responsible gaming" measures.
FanDuel, another major player in the online sports betting market, adopted a more conciliatory and proactive tone. A spokesperson for the company stated that FanDuel "welcomes the opportunity to engage with regulators and work collaboratively to establish best practices for the industry." This suggests a willingness to adapt and participate in shaping the new regulatory landscape, potentially recognizing the inevitability of stricter oversight.
The Responsible Online Gaming Association (ROGA), a trade group representing major operators including DraftKings and FanDuel, had previously commented on the draft rules in May. While acknowledging that the rules "establish a strong framework for responsible gaming," ROGA also offered "targeted recommendations." These recommendations included ensuring the new triggers "avoid displacing or disrupting the mature, data-driven behavioral risk assessment systems already in use" and do not "confuse the company’s responsible gaming role and the role of qualified clinicians." ROGA also stressed that any interventions should be "proportionate, operationally scalable, and effective." This reflects the industry’s desire to maintain control over its existing proprietary systems, avoid overly prescriptive regulations that might impact profitability or operational flexibility, and ensure that interventions are handled by qualified professionals, not just platform algorithms.
Advocates Argue for Stronger Measures and Broader Scope
Despite the significant regulatory momentum generated by New York’s proposed rules, some gambling reform advocates argue that these measures do not go far enough to comprehensively address the pervasive nature of problem gambling. Brianne Doura-Schawohl, a prominent advocate who lobbies for consumer and public health protections, offered a pointed critique of both New York and New Jersey. She stated that these states "are clearly complacent in the status quo by endorsing and prescribing regulations that are nothing more than giving the appearance of reform and not effectuating actual change."
This critique is bolstered by the findings of the ProPublica investigation, which vividly demonstrated that problematic gambling behaviors can manifest in amounts significantly smaller than the $10,000 deposit or $1 million wager thresholds. The reporter’s experience of depositing over $21,000 in less than two months while exhibiting clear signs of compulsive betting, yet receiving only generic notices and even a VIP designation, underscores the substantial gap between the proposed high-level triggers and the grim reality of how addiction often develops and presents itself. Advocates contend that a more granular, proactive, and less easily circumvented system is required to genuinely protect vulnerable individuals, particularly those who may not be high rollers but are still experiencing severe financial and personal distress from their gambling habits.
Broader National Impact and State-Level Reviews
The issues raised by the investigative reports and New York’s subsequent regulatory response are resonating across the nation, indicating a growing consensus among state governments regarding the need for strengthened oversight. States that have legalized sports betting are increasingly aware of the imperative to bolster their consumer protection frameworks.
- Maine: Regulators in Maine’s Public Safety Department have confirmed their Gambling Control Unit is "monitoring the use of AI locally and nationally" by sports betting apps. While the state currently lacks specific rules or laws directly addressing AI in gambling, the increased scrutiny signals potential future regulatory action as the issue gains prominence.
- Michigan: Regulators in Michigan have also indicated that they are actively reviewing the issues highlighted in the DraftKings AI and VIP reports, suggesting a similar concern about the ethical boundaries of player engagement.
- Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Gaming Commission, which has been proactively investigating the use of AI by gambling companies for some time, is also examining the latest findings. Their ongoing research into "AI and Player Risk Identification and Response" positions them to potentially develop comprehensive guidelines that could influence other states.
- Maryland: Governor Wes Moore has publicly expressed his intent to limit gambling companies’ use of AI to "identify and target users showing problem-gambling patterns." This high-level gubernatorial intervention signals a strong commitment to addressing the ethical concerns surrounding AI in betting and preventing its misuse.
This emerging patchwork of state-level responses highlights a growing national recognition of the problem, but also the inherent challenge of developing a consistent and comprehensive regulatory framework across diverse jurisdictions. The actions in New York are likely to serve as a significant precedent, influencing how other states approach similar reforms and potentially catalyzing a broader movement towards more stringent national standards.
The Path Forward: Public Comment and Persistent Challenges
The formal introduction of these rules is a crucial step towards their ultimate adoption. A mandatory 60-day public comment period will now commence, providing a vital opportunity for individuals, advocacy groups, industry stakeholders, and experts to formally weigh in on the proposals. This period is essential for refining the rules, ensuring they are both effective in achieving their public health goals and practical for implementation. Following the comment period and barring major revisions based on feedback, the rules will then return to the commission for final approval
Ana Megawati
Joko Widodo
Eva Lovia
Jia Lissa
Pevita Pearce