Reducing the High Stakes of Online Sports Gambling

The 2018 Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association facilitated the rapid rise of online sports gambling in the United States. With this ruling, the Court invalidated the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which had effectively banned online sports gambling. The Court ruled that PASPA violated the Tenth Amendment by commandeering state legislatures to outlaw the practice. This decision allowed states the ability to legalize and regulate online sports gambling. However, this decentralization has resulted in inconsistent regulations, with some states adopting lenient policies while others have stricter prohibitions. This discrepancy in regulation results in considerable negative ramifications.

Online sports gambling has generated substantial revenue for sportsbooks and significant tax revenues for state governments. The growing industry has also spurred job creation in legalized states. Despite these economic benefits, the widespread availability of online sports gambling poses serious risks, including addiction, financial ruin, and psychological distress. To alleviate these challenges on a national scale, federal regulation is necessary. Such regulation would standardize the industry, ensuring universal safeguards and mitigating the adverse impacts associated with the practice. Online sports gambling platforms have features that can contribute to addiction. Their user-friendly interfaces promote constant engagement, while the instant gratification of online bets reinforces addictive behaviors. Studies indicate higher addiction risks among online gamblers compared to those who gamble in person. The American Psychological Association highlights the increased potential for addiction due to the immersive nature of these platforms. The perception of low risk and minimal investment can lead to misconceptions about winning ease and loss severity. The online format’s detachment from handling tangible cash lowers psychological barriers often associated with gambling in person.

Addiction to online sports gambling can ruin social lives through job loss, debt, bankruptcy, criminal activity, and even suicide. These consequences extend beyond the individual, negatively affecting families and communities. The discreet nature of online gambling exacerbates these issues, allowing addiction to go unnoticed until it reaches a critical point. Furthermore, online gambling platforms have inconsistently enforced age restrictions, resulting in high rates of underage gambling. The American Gaming Association reports varying enforcement across states, with some states experiencing higher violation rates. Easy access to gambling platforms via smartphones makes youth particularly vulnerable.

Gambling addiction impacts more than just the addict. Families face significant emotional and financial strain, leading to issues such as divorce, domestic violence, and severe mental health problems among family members. Communities with high online gambling prevalence may see increased crime rates and greater reliance on social welfare programs due to associated unemployment and debt. The pervasive nature of online sports gambling necessitates strong federal regulation to mitigate these social harms and protect vulnerable populations.

While states benefit from increased tax revenue due to online sports gambling, the economic costs of gambling addiction can be substantial. Gambling addiction often results in decreased work productivity, job losses, and higher dependency on social welfare programs. The National Council on Problem Gambling indicates that social costs of gambling can surpass financial gains from tax revenue. The National Gambling Impact Study Commission estimated that annual gambling related problems cost over $5 billion, suggesting long-term economic costs may undermine short-term economic benefits states enjoy from online sports gambling. The ability for each state to determine online sports gambling legality and regulations has resulted in a fragmented regulatory environment. This lack of uniformity creates inconsistent regulations, complicating enforcement, and undermining consumer protection. Even states with stricter online sports gambling laws face challenges in enforcement and continue to experience social harms associated with gambling. Federal legislation is needed to standardize online sports gambling regulation and enforcement. Federal legislation should implement standardized identity and age verification processes, mandate comprehensive know-your-customer procedures, and create a national database to track banned users. Universal limits on deposits to online gambling platforms should be set to limit excessive gambling. Strict federal licensing requirements, comprehensive audits, regulatory scrutiny, and harsh penalties for violations are essential to ensure compliance and consumer protection.

Projected tax revenues from online sports gambling should fund gambling addiction treatment and awareness campaigns. Increasing public awareness of gambling addiction dangers and providing governmental rehabilitation programs for addicts are important steps. Standardizing regulations through federal legislation would streamline enforcement, enhance consumer protection, and alleviate social harms associated with online sports gambling.

Objectors to federal regulation of online sports gambling may raise concerns about potential Tenth Amendment issues, similar to those with PASPA. However, in the Murphy ruling, Justice Alito writes that Congress may regulate online sports gambling directly. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution further supports federal regulation of online sports gambling. In Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress may regulate intrastate activities affecting interstate commerce. In U.S. v. Lopez, the Court identified three categories of activity regulated under the Commerce Clause. They include the use of channels of interstate commerce, instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and activities substantially affecting interstate commerce.

In regard to the first Lopez category, online sports gambling platforms conduct business through the internet, which is a channel of interstate commerce. Since these platforms track patrons through the geolocator in their internet devices, users in states without legalized online sports gambling may cross state lines to place bets. Patrons are also known to use VPNs to spoof their location to legal states. In regard to the second category, these platforms with their technology and financial systems are instrumentalities of interstate commerce. Additionally, individuals who engage in online sports gambling, often located in different states, interact and transact through these platforms. In relation to the final category, online sports gambling has significant economic impacts such as revenue generation and mass financial transactions that can substantially affect interstate commerce.

As the popularity of online sports gambling continues to grow, federal legislation is necessary to establish uniform regulations that will safeguard consumers, prevent underage gambling, and address gambling addiction more effectively than the current approach. By leveraging the Commerce Clause, a cohesive federal framework can ensure the benefits of online sports gambling are maximized while minimizing its societal costs.

Why do you not link to the documents whose contents you refer to? Your assertions about who has said what cannot be checked, which is a pretty serious defect.

You have now reached what seems to be a pretty straightforward conclusion, that there would be no constitutional problem with regulating the industry. You could surely have put that more succinctly, but some value to you came from working it all through. But what regulation can 60 votes in the Senate be brought to agree on? You have provided no real legislative principles and no political analysis. So this is fine so far as it goes, but that turns out to be not very far.

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, AliAbid
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.