New York is weighing draft regulations, which could be adopted this year, that would require gambling platforms to, in Gov. Kathy Hochul’s words, “take real action” against gambling harm.

Despite a fluffy press release, New York would still allow the fox to guard the henhouse.

Hochul’s statement is an admission that the industry is not effectively mitigating addiction harm right now. Only industry executives and lobbyists could argue that the status quo is working.

NY Asks for Second Chance

In essence, the state says it’s taking another stab at regulating sports betting. Responsible gambling in New York and elsewhere is mostly PR. Can this change?

It is fair to ask: Why should anyone trust New York now? It previously stated that it was implementing safeguards to protect users from tactics used by unscrupulous offshore platforms.

New York authorized mobile sports wagering in 2021, and the first mobile bet in the state was placed in January 2022. Through February 2026, New Yorkers wagered over $85 billion on mobile sports betting. 

The state taxes mobile sports wagering gross gaming revenue at 51%, creating an enormous conflict of interest in its purported efforts to curb the industry’s controversial practices.

Online sports betting is fundamentally an industry in which a minority of users generate the bulk of revenue. These users often suffer emotionally and financially, with the typical person experiencing problem gambling harming six others.

Online sports betting is financially harming households, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found.

The industry is under growing public scrutiny for its predation, with nearly half of men under 30 saying it is “bad for society.” Under Gov. Hochul’s plan, New York would seek to make the predation more sustainable and less objectionable in public opinion.

The state deserves no praise for pursuing these proposed regulations, which borrow from New Jersey.

NY Sports Betting Interventions

Under Hochul’s proposal, New York could require an online sportsbook to conduct a “due diligence review” — and later a three-stage intervention — if a user triggers certain red flags.

Only after the three stages could an operator be required to suspend or close the account. Sportsbooks would have leeway on whether to do an intervention.

The state isn’t stupid. It knows sportsbooks would still turn a blind eye to problem gambling, so it could require them to maintain records for seven years on why a user wasn’t deemed at risk.

Problem Gambling Triggers

The first two triggers concern deposits. The red flag here would be a user exceeding $10,000 over a 24-hour period or $100,000 over a 90-day period.

These are enormous sums, far beyond the point at which gambling could harm most users. Still, they could provide some friction on a user’s path towards rock bottom. For some people, this friction would be easy to get around.

These limits would apply to a single sportsbook, meaning that a person could switch sportsbooks to avoid the triggers. Moreover, users may be able to travel to a neighboring state to use the same sportsbook app without triggering the intervention.

Another trigger would be wagering more than $1 million in 90 days, another huge sum.

Other triggers pertain to self-exclusion, such as starting the process but not completing it (three or more times in 30 days). It’s curious why it wouldn’t be just once instead of three. Another one is if a user requests a “cool-off” (which lasts a minimum of 72 hours) within 45 days of the conclusion of the first.

User behavior would also be flagged if they:

• Make three increases to any deposit or wagering limit, without any decreases, within seven days.
• Cancel a withdrawal three times in 10 days.
• Spend 50% or more time logged in compared to the preceding two weeks.
• End two or more gambling sessions in the same week with a balance of less than $1
• Finish two or more sessions in same week with a wagering increase from previous session.
• Deposit funds from over two sources in 24 hours

Bottom Line

The tireless, often thankless work of advocates and treatment experts is a major reason these proposed regulations exist in the first place. This is a win.

It’s crucial to have real conversations about reducing harm, especially in the largest betting market.

Unfortunately, New York has a poor track record of regulating online sports betting. The proposed regulations are weak and porous, and the state has a devastating conflict of interest in making sure the online sports betting market remains robust.

These regulations should be adopted and enforced, but they are insufficient. New York will continue to harm its residents and visitors through its partnership with this industry.

The state should wean itself off this source of tax revenue and promote prevention through abstinence from these harmful products. Betting platforms should be treated like tobacco.

New York should also regulate prediction markets like traditional gambling platforms.