MN Lawmaker To Refile Sports Betting Bill With ‘Red Flag Law’
Minnesota state Sen. John Marty is one of the leading champions for real consumer protections from, in his words, the “predatory” online sports betting industry.
Marty’s state is among the minority with no state-sanctioned online sports betting. While Marty, the chair of the Minnesota Senate Finance Committee, would like to keep it that way, he wants to bring the fight against sports gambling addiction out into the open.
In April, Marty filed his version of legislation that would legalize sports betting, a proposal he admits the betting industry hates. It called for bans on college prop bets, in-game gambling and betting app push notifications. Marty’s plan also quadrupled the proposed industry tax from another betting bill under consideration in St. Paul and set sportsbook account deposit limits.
Ultimately, no Minnesota sports betting bill crossed the finish line in 2024. Marty, a member of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, told GamblingHarm.org in a November interview that he will reintroduce his bill in the 2025 legislative session, which begins in mid-January.
“My first thing was trying to just plain stop it, which we've succeeded in doing for the last couple of years,” Marty said. “But I want to change the dynamic and start talking about the harms and what can we do to protect [people]. So, I introduced a bill allowing sports betting. I started with the bill [the industry] had and put in the safeguards we need as a minimum.”
Notable safeguards in Marty’s proposal include:
Ban college proposition bets
Ban all in-game wagering
Ban betting app push notifications
Ban sports betting advertising on public property, including sports stadiums
Ban advertising during an event where at least 10% of audience is under 21
Deposit/loss limits ($500 in 24-hour period; $3,000 in a month)
Betting app activity limits (no more than four consecutive hours)
Legal right to sue betting apps for “deceptive practices”
Ban certain promotional language, such as “risk-free bet”
“Red flag law” to protect families against addiction
“I don't know how it's going to play out,” Marty said of the 2025 policy debate around sports betting. “It's going to be a hard fight. I want to ensure these issues are aired, which is why I dropped a bill. I was on the committee that blocked it in the end the last couple of times, but that's not a good way to legislate. I want to legislate by having a discussion in all the committees, letting legislators see the evidence. Even if it passes, I want people to have heard the discussion. I want them to be ready five years down the road when they see the harm to say, ‘Maybe we shouldn't have done this.’ We will have buyer's remorse. But the way our society works is that the folks who spend the money on marketing things tend to win.”
Reasons for Safeguards
Around 30-40% of online sports bettors experience problems with their wagering, making the activity one of the most addictive forms of gambling. Marty called the data showing that half of problem gamblers have experienced suicidal ideation “horrific.” He said the relationship between gambling and suicide is “off the charts.”
Marty called the sports betting industry “cynical” and also compared it to the tobacco industry.
Here are some of the arguments Marty gave for provisions in his legislation.
Banning college props: The argument is quite simple here, as student-athletes are especially vulnerable to fan abuse and potential violence. “We have so many stories of student-athletes getting death threats,” Marty said. “We [also want to] ban betting from college campuses.” The NCAA supports a nationwide ban on college props.
Banning betting ads at sports facilities: “The U.S. Supreme Court has clear restrictions,” Marty said. “Commercial speech is not the same as political speech, but it's got great protections under the Constitution. However, there are things we can do. Our sports facilities are public property, so we can ban gambling advertising there.”
Ban on in-game wagering: Wagering during an active sports event, which includes so-called micro-betting on outcomes such as whether a single pitch will be a ball or a strike, is the most addictive form of sports gambling, Marty said.
Audience-based advertising restrictions: “The most at-risk new gamblers are young people,” Marty said. “For advertising of any kind—online, during games, newspapers, TV, radio, Internet, anywhere—if the expected audience is more than 10% people under the gambling age, 21 in Minnesota, it would not be allowed.” According to Marty, greater than 10% of the NFL Super Bowl audience could be under-agers, so the result would likely be a ban on Super Bowl betting commercials appearing in Minnesota.
Deposit limits: The argument here is straightforward. While people of all income levels engage in sports gambling and can experience addiction, “problem gambling is heavily tilted towards low-income households,” Marty said. Evidence is mounting that sports betting hurts consumers.
Push notification ban: “They should be able to notify you only to say you've got a problem here,” Marty said. “Somebody defrauded your account or to verify something; they should not be doing it to market. No push notifications except for those purposes. They have the data on everything you do. That's why the push notifications are a part of their predatory behavior.”
Right to sue a sportsbook: “If you're the victim of deceptive marketing or anything else, you have a right to sue the sportsbook,” Marty said. “That's probably what they hate most in our bill because they could be vulnerable. It scares them. They don't want anybody to talk about [this policy idea] in any other state either.”
Family harm provision: Marty envisions a mechanism for protecting people who have let their sports betting get out of control and aren’t getting the help they need voluntarily. “It should be like a red flag law for guns. If I sense a family member is falling prey to sports betting, I report it to the gambling regulator, and they have to notify all the platforms.” Marty cited a recent study out of the University of Oregon that showed a rise in domestic violence in sports betting states.
40% tax rate on the industry’s winnings: Marty said the 51% tax rate in New York inspired his push for a higher rate in Minnesota. He said he directed his staff to contact officials in New York to learn more about the process of enacting a higher tax rate for sports betting sites. “One of the reasons for big tax brackets is to take the money that the predators are pulling out of the state and keep it here. We're going to use it in schools for mental health and anti-addiction education. There's much we can do.” A competing bill for Minnesota sports betting calls for the lion’s share of the tax cut (10%) to be used to support the horse gambling industry and smaller Indian Tribes who wouldn’t make as much money from online betting partnerships as others.
Sports Betting is Technically Legal Already
One of Marty’s core arguments is that you can already make bets on sports in Minnesota. It’s an individual freedom that already exists. However, it can’t be a business.
“We have sports betting in Minnesota,” Marty said. “You can bet with anyone on anything you want. We have March Madness pools at the State Senate. The thing that's not legal is allowing the predatory industry to come in and encourage people to gamble more than they should.”
He added that online sportsbooks have a history of restricting or banning the accounts of the very small percentage of people who win more than they lose.
“They’re not your friend,” he added. “If you start winning, they'll kick you off. If you start doing anything that cuts into their profits, they'll punish you. Some people seem to be skilled at it, and some of them have been kicked off platforms. In other words, they're kicking off the ones beating the process. They're not kicking off people feeding the process with their addiction.”
Marty called state approval to conduct online sports betting a “license to print money.”
Despite the criticisms of the industry, Marty said that the people working for the companies are just doing their jobs, and the intent isn’t malicious or nefarious.
“I'm sure they're good people who work [at the sportsbooks], and I'm sure they feel it's a good product. But a product meant to prey on people's weaknesses is not a safe or good product to have. People can gamble without [these apps] being here.”
Image via Pixabay