Proposed legislation in the US Congress that would place demands on gaming companies to adhere to federal guidelines – including New York sportsbooks – for public health has promoted a response from a major problem gambling advocacy organization.
The National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) released a letter this week that contains a neutral stance on the Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet (SAFE Bet) Act, which was co-sponsored by New York US Rep. Paul Tonko earlier this month.
It appears the NCPG would prefer a bill that in its view would provide more substance to address the issue of problem gambling.
“Given the urgency of the issue, NCPG remains committed to advancing the Gambling Addiction Recovery, Investment, and Treatment (GRIT) Act, which would establish the first-ever federal funding for gambling addiction prevention, treatment, and research programs,” the Sept. 16 statement from the NCPG reads.
“The GRIT Act would be a critical step toward meeting the needs of individuals facing gambling problems and ensuring robust consumer protections across the gambling landscape. NCPG stands ready to collaborate with lawmakers and stakeholders to advance policies that mitigate gambling-related harm across the gambling landscape.”
What is the GRIT Act?
The GRIT Act was introduced in January by US Rep. Andrea Salinas (Oregon) and US Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut), who incidentally introduced the SAFE Bet Act alongside Tonko.
“Gambling addictions are hurting countless families, children, and communities in Oregon and across America,” Salinas said earlier this year. “Yet unlike alcohol and drug addictions, there are currently no federal funds devoted solely to helping stop problem gambling.
“Our legislation will deliver much-needed resources to states and nonprofits, promoting new research and ensuring more people can get into treatment and recovery. This is a commonsense solution and I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting it.”
In contrast, SAFE does not expressly provide for new funding of programs to combat problem gambling or addiction programs. Instead, it would require online sports betting and casino gaming operators to follow the same minimum federal standards that provide for consumer safety from health problems.
NCPG may be neutral, but the AGE is not
According to its response, the NCPG sees the SAFE Bet Act as worthwhile, but probably isn’t the preferred piece of federal legislation that the organization would like to see passed first.
The NCPG said “the SAFE Bet Act draws attention to the need for stronger consumer protections for not just sports bettors but all gamblers and a safety net for anyone who develops a problem.
“NCPG hopes the proposed legislation will raise awareness of the critical need for federal government research into gambling addiction, national self-exclusion tools, and common-sense advertising standards.”
The American Gaming Association is not a fan of the SAFE Bet Act. Chris Cylke, senior vice president of government relations for the AGA, noted that current legal sportsbooks currently contribute “billions in state taxes across the US, protecting consumers from dangerous neighborhood bookies and illegal offshore websites, and working diligently with over 5,000 state and tribal regulators and other stakeholders to ensure a commitment to responsibility and positive play,” according to a statement.
“Six years into legal sports betting, introducing heavy-handed federal prohibitions is a slap in the face to state legislatures and gaming regulators who have dedicated countless time and resources to developing thoughtful frameworks unique to their jurisdictions, and have continued to iterate as their marketplaces evolve.”
