���������

Lawmakers in several states have crafted bills that would significantly restrict sports betting in their states, borrowing provisions from federal legislation proposed last year.

As legislative sessions across the United States kick off this month, a flurry of gaming-related bills have been introduced, including in Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Indiana and New Jersey, that would hamper sports-betting operations in a meaningful way.

In Massachusetts, Democratic state Senator John Keenan last week introduced , a bill that borrows heavily from the so-called SAFE Bet Act, which was introduced in both chambers of the U.S. Congress last year.

The SAFE Bet Act died at the end of the last Congress in January and is yet to be re-introduced by its Democratic sponsors, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Representative Paul Tonko of New York.

Similar to the proposed federal legislation, Keenan’s bill would prohibit in-play and proposition wagers, and require affordability checks to permit wagers of more than $1,000 per day or $10,000 per month, forcing Massachusetts operators to verify that wagers do not exceed 15 percent of funds that a person has available in a bank account.

The bill would also prohibit advertising sports wagering operations during a televised sporting event, as well as tag the marketing of same game parlays as an unfair practice similar to marketing a “risk-free” bet.

Advertising prohibitions were a major issue when the Massachusetts legislature passed the state's initial sports-betting enabling legislation in 2022, with the state's Senate including a whistle-to-whistle advertising prohibition during televised sporting events in its version of the bill legislation. That ban item was then removed after conference committee negotiations with the House.

Keenan's new bill also includes a provision he pushed for last year to raise the state’s sports-betting tax rate from 20 percent to 51 percent.

If nothing else, the legislation indicates that proponents of federal restrictions are also mobilizing at state level in 2025.

Harry Levant, director of gambling policy at the Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University in Boston, was a key influencer on the SAFE Bet Act and testified in favor of it at last month’s U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on sports betting.

Levant credited Keenan and a House co-sponsor, Democratic Representative Lindsay Sabadosa, on bringing the bill forward.

“The public health movement is bringing reform and regulation to the gambling industry in Massachusetts,” Levant said in a LinkedIn post.

Mirroring the move in Massachusetts, was introduced in Oklahoma’s House of Representatives last week to legalize and regulate sports betting in the state, but under the terms of the SAFE Bet Act.

The bill includes similar affordability checks, a maximum of five deposits in a 24-hour period by a player, and a ban on advertising sports betting on television from 8am to 10pm and during live sporting events.

Those are not the only bills introduced so far in 2025 targeting sports-betting advertising.

In Indiana, Republican Representative J.D. Prescott has introduced , which would prohibit advertising sports wagering entirely in the state in any form, with an effective three-strikes rule that would revoke the license of a sports-betting operator that violates the ban.

A further bill, , was introduced last week in the New Jersey Assembly by Republican Brian Bergen to prohibit any ads on the internet or on any online platform.

It should be noted that none of the bills has the typical hallmarks of a bill earmarked for success in the legislature, such as backing from the governor or a strong figure in the majority party’s legislative leadership, or a large number of co-sponsors that indicates widespread support.

There are other hurdles as well. 

Keenan’s attempts at tax hikes have attracted little support in past Massachusetts legislatures, while in Oklahoma, legalizing sports betting in any form continues to be hampered by hostility between Governor Kevin Stitt and tribal gaming leaders over larger Indian gaming issues, let alone legalizing it under the terms of the SAFE Bet Act.