Connecticut Lawmakers Propose New Responsible Gambling & Prediction Market Guardrails
Several gaming bills have been heard during this legislative session that would, among other things, bolster consumer protection pertaining to withdrawals and limit or eliminate the use of AI utilized by gaming platforms.
Protecting or Patronizing?
As with most political discourse, there are two sides to every story, and gaming amendments are no different.
Connecticut Representative Craig C. Fishbein and William Heffernan have co-sponsored HB-5229, a measure that aims to limit gambling advertisements on college and university campuses, set rules for withdrawing money from gaming accounts, require licensed gaming operators to provide customer service phone numbers, and prohibit the use of artificial intelligence to target customers’ specific betting patterns.
While some believe these are guardrails worth implementing, others feel it is a typical example of government overreach that will only decrease the bottom line for gaming platforms, and by default, the state’s tax revenue, without adding any reasonable protections.
Connecticut is considering a proposal that would force bettors to remain committed to withdrawal requests once they are submitted, except in cases involving an error, a mandatory investigation, or a technical malfunction. The measure would also prohibit operators from directly marketing to users who have initiated a withdrawal.
Supporters argue that these guardrails will reduce problem gambling and allow withdrawals to be facilitated even if the customer has reconsidered, while also curbing marketing tactics to increase gambling activity.
Stakeholders Push Back
However, FanDuel’s senior manager of state government relations, Michael Ventre, disagreed with the proposed policy by saying, “Players who request withdrawals aren’t inherently engaging in problematic gambling behavior, yet this bill would treat them similarly to self-excluded individuals—despite no evidence of concerning conduct. From a consumer choice perspective, we believe players should maintain control over their own funds and financial decisions.”
The other two gaming operators in Connecticut, DraftKings and Fanatics, as well as the Native American tribes associated with them, the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan Indians, were also vehemently opposed to the proposed legislation.
Moreover, the operators also vehemently denounced the forced addition of a toll-free number to handle withdrawal issues. FanDuel’s Ventre said this additional burden imposed on the platforms would be “inefficient and difficult to manage.”
As for the bill restricting or eliminating the companies’ use of artificial intelligence to track a player’s bets, create personalized promotions, and design a tailored gambling product, such as micro-bets, based on the customers’ preferences, it is essentially tantamount to finding a problem for every solution.
The joint committee heard this bill and several others over a 10-hour session, but did not take a vote.
