Copy, Paste, Legislate: How The SAFE Bet Act Is Infiltrating State Law

And now, for my next trick, I will marry the SAFE Bet Act with Poltergeist, specifically with one of the most iconic and spooky scenes in movie history.

The flickering television, the high-pitched sounds, and the sweet, innocent little 5-year-old girl climbing out of her parents’ bed … getting closer to the television … turning to the camera and saying …

The “they’re” in this admittedly strained analogy is state and other federal lawmakers, and the poltergeist we need to be wary of is the SAFE Bet Act.

Steve Ruddock, the author of the daily must-read Straight the Point substack, has been — even more strained analogy incoming — the sweet little 5-year-old girl warning us.

Writing about the re-introduction of the SAFE Bet Act earlier this month, Ruddock noted that, “passage in a hyper-polarized Congress seems unlikely, but as I’ve written, its existence could shape state-level policy … ”

Everyone together now: They’re heeeeeeere.

Illinois bill, Ctrl-C

Illinois state Sen. Bill Cunningham — who happens to be the president pro tempore of the Illinois Senate — dropped a bill in February that was sent to the Gaming, Wagering, and Racing Committee Wednesday that would amend the state’s sports betting law.

It is literally copied and pasted from the SAFE Bet Act, and, if passed, would completely upend how sportsbooks operate in the state.

The bill would prohibit “a sports wagering licensee from using artificial intelligence to: track the sports wagers of an individual; create an offer or promotion targeting a specific individual; or create a gambling product.”

While the “new” version of the SAFE Bet Act hasn’t dropped yet, last year’s version, when it came to artificial intelligence, read as follows: “Provide that a sports wagering operator may not use artificial intelligence to track the sports wagers of an individual; create an offer or promotion targeting a specific individual; or create a gambling product, such as a microbet.”

Um … yep.

And what may be even more worrisome for those who worry about these types of things is that Cunningham is a Republican, and New York Rep. Paul Tonko, the author of the SAFE Bet Act, is a Democrat.

I’m not a scholar of the legislative process, but I have to imagine it’s not every day a Republican lawmaker sees a Democrat’s bill and is like, “Let’s just go ahead and Control-C that shizz.”

Meanwhile, in Washington

Another Republican — this time at the federal level — introduced a bill recently to ban prop bets on college athletes across the nation.

The bill  — ‘‘Providing Responsible Oversight and Transparency and Ensuring Collegiate Trust for Student Athletes Act,” or, the PROTECT Act — was written by first-term Congressman Michael Baumgartner of Washington. He is also the the chair of the College Sports Caucus.

And while his bill isn’t a direct copy-and-paste job, it may as well be.

Buamgartner: PROHIBITION ON PROP BETS INVOLVING STUDENT ATHLETES. No individual or entity engaged in the business of betting or wagering may accept any bet or wager that includes a covered prop bet. 

Tonko: PROHIBITION ON AMATEUR OR INTERCOLLEGIATE PROPOSITION BETS. Prohibit the State regulatory entity from approving, or a sports wagering operator from accepting, a proposition bet on any amateur athletic competition; or any intercollegiate sport.

Ad bans

Of course, there are other state legislators doing work that’s in the SAFE Bet Act, specifically as it pertains to advertising.

The SAFE Bet Act is seeking to limit sports advertising to after 10 p.m. and before 8 a.m. and completely ban it during sporting events.

Assemblyman Brian Bergen from New Jersey dropped a bill in January that would simply prohibit sports betting advertisements in the state, no matter the time.

“I just think it’s become totally ridiculous,” Bergen told New Jersey 101.5. “The advertising has been like a runaway train and it needs to be reeled in.”

And in what is starting to look like a recurring theme, Bergen is a Republican, and serves as the minority whip in the Assembly. In short: another legislative leader. 

That bill has been referred to the Assembly Tourism, Gaming, and the Arts Committee.

Now, to be abundantly clear: Just because this, or any, bill gets introduced does not mean a new law is coming down the pike.

But with the combination of anti-gambling sentiment and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle assembling to reign in the industry — and this is but a sampling — well, America’s legalized sportsbooks may be facing (strained analogy alert!) their own regulatory endgame. Let’s just hope there isn’t one of those Thanos-like snaps out of existence. (Like the bills in Maryland and Vermont are seeking to do.)