The legislative proposal, which first surfaced last September, aims at addressing responsible and problem gambling by developing federal betting oversight.

In a press conference announcing the return of the bill, the lawmakers framed it as a necessary measure to establish federal guidelines for online sports betting, particularly in areas such as advertising, consumer protections, and industry regulation.

The SAFE Bet Act, which has not yet been published on the federal government’s website, seeks to implement advertising guidelines that dictate the language used in gambling advertisements and restrict when such ads can be aired on broadcast television.

It also proposes the creation of a national self-exclusion list, allowing individuals suffering gambling harm to voluntarily ban themselves from participating in online sports betting nationwide.

Additionally, the bill, according to the lawmakers’ statements, introduces affordability checks to prevent individuals from wagering beyond their financial means.

Learning from the past

The proposed legislation builds upon an earlier version, which was also introduced by Tonko and Blumenthal. However, that version failed to gain traction in the previous congressional session.

At Tuesday’s press conference, Tonko acknowledged that the new iteration of the bill includes a key amendment: a requirement for states to collaborate with the federal government in shutting down illegal sports betting operations.

The timing of the announcement was deliberate, with the lawmakers hoping to generate momentum ahead of the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament, known as March Madness.

The event, which begins with Selection Sunday on 16 March and concludes with the national championship on 7 April, is one of the most heavily wagered-on sporting events in the US, competing with the NFL Super Bowl.

Rep. Tonko and Sen. Blumenthal were joined by responsible gambling advocates and a recovering gambling addict at the press conference, reinforcing the bill’s focus on mitigating gambling-related harm.

Rep. Tonko said the sports betting industry, which generated a record $14bn in revenue in 2024 — representing a 25% increase over 2023 — profits largely from a small group of problem gamblers.

Sen. Blumenthal was even more direct in his criticism, referring to legal sports betting as “the science of exploitation.”

He asserted that the SAFE Bet Act would introduce new restrictions on betting markets, particularly targeting in-play betting and college proposition bets, which he argued accelerate gambling losses and encourage reckless behavior.

Just say no to AI

Another major component of the SAFE Bet Act is its proposed restrictions on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in targeting bettors.

The legislation seeks to curb the use of AI-driven marketing techniques that analyse user behaviour to maximise engagement and spending.

Additionally, it aims to eliminate VIP programs, which reward high-spending customers with incentives such as bonuses and exclusive offers, a practice that critics argue exacerbates gambling addiction.

One of the panelists at the press conference likened such promotional strategies to drug dealers ensuring their best customers remain addicted, underscoring the argument that sports betting companies prioritise profits over consumer well-being.

Betting sector attracts federal attention

The SAFE Bet Act is one of two federal sports betting bills currently being discussed on Capitol Hill, highlighting growing concerns over the rapid expansion of legal sports gambling in the US.

Despite bipartisan acknowledgment of problem gambling as a significant issue, the prospects of the SAFE Bet Act remain uncertain.

The sports betting industry, backed by powerful lobbying efforts, has consistently resisted federal oversight, arguing that state-level regulation is sufficient.

Operators and industry advocates have also pointed to the economic benefits of legal sports betting, including job creation and tax revenue for states.

However, when the SAFE Bet Act was introduced last September, it faced widespread criticism. Among others, advocates for responsible gambling raised concerns about its broad scope.

Additionally, some argued that the legislation may be unconstitutional.