Summary#
S10721, titled “Authorizes a person to limit the gambling self-exclusion to online platforms,” would amend New York’s Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law. It would require state regulations to provide a way to self-exclude from online platforms only. The apparent goal is to let people choose a narrower form of self-exclusion; that is a goal, not a guaranteed result.
- The New York State Gaming Commission would have to set rules for placing people on and removing them from self-exclusion lists, including rules for online-only exclusion.
- The Commission’s rules would have to cover sending identifying information to licensed gaming facilities and/or online platforms.
- Gaming facilities and online platforms would have to maintain procedures to remove excluded people from targeted ads and promotions, and deny them credit, complimentary benefits, check-cashing privileges, club programs and similar benefits.
- A person requesting exclusion must acknowledge that they are a problem gambler and agree that, during the exclusion, they cannot collect winnings or recover losses from covered gaming activity.
- The bill is introduced and referred to the Rules Committee, so it is not law. If enacted, it would take effect immediately.
What it means for you#
- People seeking self-exclusion: The rules would have to let you choose exclusion from online platforms without also excluding yourself from licensed gaming facilities under that choice. The bill does not set out the steps for making that choice.
- People who self-exclude: The bill’s terms require agreeing not to collect winnings or recover losses from gaming covered by the exclusion during its term.
- Gaming facilities and online platforms: They would have to follow the Commission’s rules and maintain the listed procedures for excluded people.
- Taxpayers and the public: The bill changes rules for self-exclusion; it does not create a new agency, tax, fine, or public benefit.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The Commission would have to establish rules, and gaming facilities and online platforms would have to maintain procedures. The bill gives no staffing or cost estimate.
What is unclear#
- The parent law and current regulations were not supplied, so the existing self-exclusion rules and what this bill changes in practice could not be verified.
- The bill does not specify the application, identity-check, removal, appeal or review process; it leaves procedures to Commission regulations.
- The bill does not set a timetable for those regulations.
- “Online platforms” is not defined in the bill text supplied; it is unclear whether the parent law defines it.
- The bill does not explain how the Commission would oversee compliance or what happens if a facility or platform fails to follow the rules.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to give people more choice: someone could seek to block their online gambling without also choosing exclusion from licensed gaming facilities.
- A possible argument for the approach is that the Commission can set the practical procedures through regulations, rather than putting every operational detail in the law.
- The bill keeps self-exclusion voluntary: a person may request placement on the list.
Case against#
- The bill leaves important details—such as how people join or leave the list—to future regulations, so the protections and practical process are not clear from the bill.
- A person seeking exclusion must agree not to collect winnings or recover losses from covered activity during the exclusion. The bill does not explain how that condition would work in practice.
- The bill requires procedures to limit advertising and certain benefits, but gives no cost estimate for the Commission or affected businesses.