A group of Pennsylvania lawmakers has formed a “problem gambling caucus” to push reforms within the state’s legal gambling market, rather than abolish online gambling.
Joe Picozzi, a Republican state Senator for the 5th District in Northeast Philadelphia, is among the caucus’ leaders. The group also includes Reps. Jamie Flick, a Republican, Ben Sanchez, a Democrat, and Tarik Khan, a Democrat.
Picozzi said the group is not “arguing that Pennsylvania must abandon its legal, regulated [sports or online] gambling market,” but wants policy changes within it.
Meanwhile, online-gambling-related suicides are occurring in Pennsylvania. Self-exclusions have also skyrocketed, but they represent only the tip of the iceberg in the state’s self-inflicted crisis.
The caucus creation followed a recent 126-page report from a Joint State Government Commission of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, which outlined potential reforms.
Policy Framework
“Pennsylvania should examine common-sense reforms that make the online gambling experience safer and more transparent,” Picozzi said. “Some potential policies include meaningful options for deposit and time limits, clear and accessible information about spending and losses, effective tools to help people pause or step away from gambling, and reasonable restrictions on marketing practices that can encourage excessive play.”
He didn’t mention in-game, AI-powered microbetting, which some critics—notably Dr. Harry Levant of the Public Health Advocacy Institute—have long argued is highly addictive and could be banned outright.
Picozzi also didn’t highlight the industry’s controversial tactics around customer withdrawal requests.
The Pennsylvania caucus contrasts sharply with a coalition in neighboring Ohio that wants to delegalize online sports betting and confine the activity to brick-and-mortar casinos.
What Can The Caucus Do?
Pennsylvania’s newly formed bipartisan Problem Gambling Caucus is an informal group of state lawmakers, rather than an official legislative committee.
Although its members have announced public-health and consumer-protection priorities, the group has not publicly established a formal charter, dedicated budget, or independent legislative authority.
The group can’t compel testimony from the gambling industry simply by calling itself a caucus.
Its members can, however, introduce bills and organize public support and awareness for policy changes.
Zooming Out
Some of Picozzi’s proposals could be meaningful in theory if they created real friction. Activity statements for online gambling, for example, appear mostly ineffective, even in some gambling-industry-funded research.
Picozzi said, “These protections should be practical, enforceable and informed by evidence.”
Rutgers University this week published a study on adolescent gambling, which showed high rates, though the gambling industry funded it. Arnold Ventures recently announced funding for industry-independent research. The World Health Organization has warned against industry-funded research.
Picozzi added that guardrails should “help consumers understand their behavior before it becomes a crisis, rather than relying exclusively on intervention after significant financial or personal harm has occurred.”
In other words, the focus is prevention, not just treatment options or resources. Still, preventative measures within the industry framework of “responsible gambling” may prove ineffective.
Bottom Line
Can meaningful reform happen in the Keystone State, given the tens of millions of dollars the betting industry has invested in state-level races this election cycle and the resistance reformers may face?
Pennsylvania is a “partner” in the online gambling industry, as one state lawmaker put it roughly a decade ago when sports betting legalization was debated in Harrisburg. The state generates billions of dollars in tax revenue annually from commercialized gambling, and online gambling is a growing component.
Pennsylvania collected $1.56 billion in combined tax revenue from online casinos and online sports betting during fiscal year 2025–26, according to figures from the state Gaming Control Board.
Can such a lucrative industry for the state and gambling companies be meaningfully reformed at the state level?
Some advocates say federal reform, such as the SAFE Bet Act, is the best way to create minimum guardrails, while others argue the Supreme Court should reverse its controversial 2018 ruling that paved the way for sports betting. The high court could soon rule on sports gambling via prediction markets, which Pennsylvania doesn’t regulate.
Pennsylvania lawmakers who want to reform the sports gambling industry, even in potentially very limited ways, face a steep policy struggle, as the industry typically lobbies for virtually no changes to its products or business practices. Can new Pennsylvania bills survive this pressure?
