SAFE Bet Act ‘Reintroduced’ At DC Press Conference, Addictive Nature Of Sports Betting Emphasized

If at first you don’t gain much traction announcing your national sports betting bill, try, try again.

U.S. Rep. Paul Tonko (New York) first announced plans for the Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet (SAFE Bet) Act in March 2024 and shared an outline of its measures. He then formally introduced it along with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut) on Sept. 12 and held a press conference.

On Tuesday, six months after that press conference and roughly a year after the initial announcement, the same parties gathered again for another press conference in Washington, D.C., to announce the reintroduction of the SAFE Bet Act in Congress.

The focus was on the addictive nature of sports gambling, particularly in its popular online form, as all of the speakers spelled out that they are not looking to ban the activity — even if one may infer that they would personally prefer to do just that.

“Last year, the American people lost almost $14 billion betting on sports,” Tonko said in his prepared opening remarks, noting that while the industry celebrates its revenue numbers, their profits could or should be re-framed as money spent by the public. “Every year, more and more Americans are negatively affected by the harms of problem gambling.”

Tonko called attention to his repeated emphasizing of three words he uses to describe mobile sports betting: “known addictive product.”

“To be very, very clear, we are in no way attempting to ban gambling on sports,” Tonko said. “But the Supreme Court explicitly gives Congress the green light to regulate sports betting directly. That’s what we’re here to do.”

Inside the Act

The Act itself is broken into three sections.

The first would establish “minimum federal standards for sports betting,” starting with a prohibition on the activity in all states until each state has an approved application from the Department of Justice to allow wagering. The standards would include requirements around advertising, deposit limits, affordability checks, and bans on AI tracking. One detail that has already gathered some support and could potentially come to fruition sooner than the rest of the Act is a ban on all prop bets featuring college and amateur athletes.

The second section centers around public health concerns, authorizing a national sports betting survey, funding a national clearinghouse for self-exclusion lists, and requiring a surgeon general report on the public health impacts related to legal sports betting. 

The third section of the SAFE Bet Act is titled “General Provisions,” and mostly just clarifies that states with tribal gaming authorities would not be exempt from any federal provisions.

Conspicuously absent from the original outline of the SAFE Bet Act was a request for reporting on any impacts of the pervasive presence of illegal and/or unregulated sports betting. But Tonko said Tuesday, “SAFE Bet now also includes a provision to require states and sportsbooks to work with the federal government to shut down illegal and unlicensed gambling establishments.”

Sen. Blumenthal spoke extemporaneously, rather than reading from a script as Tonko did, and began by echoing, “We’re here on the eve of March Madness, not to prohibit sports betting, but to make it safer.” He singled out the national self-exclusion list as the most important part of the Act, hoping to see a day when operators will honor that list and never send promotions to excluded players.

“Sports betting has become a science. It is the science of exploitation,” Blumenthal said.

“I am hoping that we will have bipartisan support for this measure. It is an idea whose time has come,” he said, then added, melodramatically, “Lives are at stake.”

Attaching human faces

One of the co-authors of the SAFE Bet Act, recovering gambling addict turned gambling addiction counselor Harry Levant, turned up that melodrama as he spoke about this “inherently dangerous gambling product” easily accessible on so many people’s phones.

“The sports leagues have sold out to the gambling industry, and sports are now the equivalent of a nonstop slot machine, where the action never ends,” Levant said, spotlighting his opposition to in-game betting and the “artificial intelligence” that powers it.

Levant brought a prop to the proceedings, pulling a shuttlecock out of his pocket as he marveled at the reality that even the sport of badminton is now available for regulated wagering.

His harshest comments, though, were saved for mobile operators’ VIP hosting and tiered rewards programs. Those rewards, he explained, are “the equivalent of a neighborhood drug dealer rewarding their best customers to make certain they never stop wanting or needing more action.”

Levant wasn’t the only recovering gambling addict in attendance. At last September’s press conference, Gordon Douglas spoke, as the parent of a child who had become addicted to online sports betting and nearly committed suicide. Douglas returned Tuesday accompanied by both his wife Lisa and that son, Andrew.

“We support the SAFE Bet Act, because we feel that there needs to be some guardrails and protections,” Gordon Douglas said.

Added the 32-year-old Andrew, “Gambling addiction had a hold of me. … The hope is to save future generations from having to go through what my family, and myself have had to go through.”

The Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI) was also represented at the press conference, with both its founder and president, Prof. Richard Daynard, and its executive director, Mark Gottlieb, sharing a few words in support of the SAFE Bet Act. Daynard, who previously played a major role in going after the tobacco industry, remarked forlornly on witnessing college students spending the Super Bowl with their heads down, betting on their phones, rather than looking up and watching the game.

Could this become law?

The SAFE Bet Act was also a part of the conversation at a U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on Dec. 17, where Sen. Blumental asked each of the five witnesses testifying if they would support the SAFE Bet Act. Levant was one of those witnesses, and was obviously partial to the bill he helped write. The other four ended up split down the middle, with one yes (NCAA President Charlie Baker), one no (former New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement Director David Rebuck), one neutral (then-National Council on Problem Gambling Executive Director Keith Whyte), and one unsure (former NFL player and NFLPA representative Johnson Bademosi).

A separate piece of legislation that has been introduced and is fully supported by the National Council on Problem Gambling is the GRIT Act, which seeks specifically to fund responsible gambling and problem gambling initiatives with dollars secured through gambling taxes.

Although the general sense is that the SAFE Bet Act remains an extreme longshot to pass, the mounting negative publicity surrounding the activity of sports betting has some industry insiders believe some sort of federal intervention — even if not in this exact form — is inevitable.

Rep. Tonko certainly believes so, and he said of the road ahead for the SAFE Bet Act, “We’re going to work until we cross that finish line.”