Online gambling rules tighten safeguards

Summary#

HB 2879, titled “Providing for online gambling public health and consumer protection,” would amend Pennsylvania’s Title 35 by adding a chapter on online gambling. Its stated goal is to protect public health and consumers; the bill does not guarantee particular health results. It is introduced and is not law; if enacted, it would take effect in 60 days.

• Online gambling operators would face limits on deposits, wagers, losses, game speed, play time, payment methods and account access.
• Operators and their related companies would face new advertising and promotion bans, and would have to provide warnings and detailed account statements.
• The Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs would have new duties, including education, setting affordability criteria, and requiring operators to use an approved independent software provider to monitor player activity. A task force would be created within the department—not as an independent agency—to study the issue and make recommendations.
• Operators would pay an assessment equal to 0.75% of specified online gambling revenue into a restricted account within the existing Compulsive and Problem Gambling Treatment Fund. The department would control how that money is spent.
• Qualifying research organizations and public colleges could request transaction-level gambling data for approved research, with privacy safeguards.

What it means for you#

• People who gamble online: Operators could accept no more than two deposits from or on behalf of a person in 24 hours. Deposits over $5,000 in a 180-day period would require an affordability assessment; deposits that do not meet department criteria must be rejected. After a deposit, wagers generally could not be accepted for 15 minutes.
• People who gamble online: The bill sets maximum wagers per interactive game of $2 for ages 21–25 and $5 for people over 25. It also bars wagers after specified losses: $750 in 24 hours or $2,500 in 30 days for ages 21–25; $1,500 in 24 hours or $5,000 in 30 days for people at least 25. Accounts would need daily and monthly loss limits, but the bill does not set their amounts.
• People who gamble online: Operators could not take credit cards or government assistance cards, directly or indirectly, as wager payment. The bill also bars gift cards bought with those cards, autoplay, microbets, certain multi-outcome bets on one sporting event, and games that finish in under 15 seconds. Accounts would sign out after 15 minutes of inactivity. Time limits would default to two hours per day, could be lower, and could not be raised without a 72-hour wait and a further affirmative action.
• People who gamble online: Within six months, platforms would have to require biometric data when opening an account, biometric confirmation at every login, before sports wagers over $500, and at least every 30 minutes while logged in. Existing accounts would have to close if the player did not provide the data within 60 days after the platform complies. Within 90 days, a player could access an account from only one device at a time, with no more than two devices associated with the account.
• Operators and related companies: The bill bars many ads and promotions, including deposit incentives, push or text solicitations, certain bonus and cross-promotion ads, ads aimed at people under 21, and ads on or near schools and college campuses. It also restricts ads during specified broadcast hours and live sports broadcasts, bans certain VIP and loyalty programs, and requires opt-in consent for permitted direct offers. Operators would have to show warnings, balances, play time and monthly activity statements.
• Government and researchers: The department would run education and prevention programs and oversee research funding and data access. The nine-member task force would review and research online gambling harms and recommend responses. Operators must provide requested data at least quarterly when a request is approved.

Money#

The bill requires an assessment of 0.75% of specified online gambling revenue, but no cost estimate is provided.

• The assessment would be collected by the Department of Revenue and placed in a restricted account in the existing treatment fund. The department would have exclusive control over spending it for education, prevention, treatment and research related to online gambling.
• The department must fund and maintain a secure statewide data repository and linkage system from that account. The bill also requires new department work and operator systems, but gives no staffing or implementation cost estimates.
• No publicly available information. The supplied material contains no fiscal estimate or payment schedule for the assessment.

What is unclear#

• The department must set affordability criteria and a waiting period for raising loss limits, but the bill does not state those standards or the actual loss-limit amounts.
• The age rules overlap at age 25: one provision covers ages 21–25 and another covers people at least 25. The bill does not explain which loss threshold applies to a 25-year-old.
• The bill does not spell out how affordability decisions can be challenged, or what safeguards and oversight apply to the required monitoring software and its identification of people at risk.
• “Qualified research organization” is not defined in the supplied text. The bill also does not set a clear meaning for “timely” data delivery or explain all privacy and security controls.
• The bill refers to penalty provisions in the existing gaming law, but that law was not supplied, so the exact penalties and how these rules interact with current law could not be verified. The bill also does not state when the assessment payments are due.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to reduce gambling-related harm by slowing play, setting spending and time controls, and interrupting access after high losses.
• Required warnings and statements could make a player’s spending, losses and time spent gambling more visible.
• Limits on deposit incentives, targeted marketing and VIP programs could reduce pressure to gamble more or chase losses.
• Dedicated funding and linked, anonymized research data could help the state study harms and evaluate prevention and treatment measures.

Case against#

• The restrictions would sharply limit how adults can use online gambling platforms, including strict per-play and loss caps, biometric checks and limits on time and devices.
• Operators would have to build or change systems, provide extensive reporting, and pay a revenue-based assessment. The bill gives no estimate of the resulting costs.
• Financial and biometric information, and automated monitoring of player activity, raise privacy and security questions that the bill does not fully answer.
• The department would control the assessment spending and set important operating criteria, while the bill leaves several standards and review processes to later rules or decisions.