In the ever-evolving landscape of legalized sports betting, Connecticut lawmakers are taking significant steps to regulate the industry with the introduction of new legislation. In the wake of legalizing digital and retail sports betting, daily fantasy sports, and online gambling in May 2021, the state’s legislators are not resting on their laurels. The latest bill to be considered, File No. 271 (substitute for HB 5284), while it may not be grabbing headlines, is reflective of several industry trends emerging at both national and international levels.
Proposed regulations within HB 271 are set to introduce stringent advertising guidelines that are comparable to those imposed in regions such as Ontario, Maine, and Massachusetts. In a move to streamline industry practices and ensure responsible gambling, the bill stipulates a minimum legal age for sports betting and iGaming at 21, while individuals aged 18 and above are permitted to participate in daily fantasy contests, lottery, and keno. This comes as other states are concurrently mulling over the implementation of more severe advertising constraints.
One of the salient features of the bill is its provisions surrounding the mechanics of affiliate marketing in the gambling sector. It restricts licensees from entering into contracts with third-party advertisers whose compensation is contingent upon the number of patrons they draw, the volume or amount of wagers placed, or the outcomes of such wagers. This marks a departure from previous practices and aligns with Massachusetts’ regulatory approach, which prohibits revenue-share affiliate agreements but does allow for “Cost per Action” agreements.
Another hot issue addressed by the bill is the call to ban prop bets on college athletes—an action that NCAA President Charlie Baker and the association have publicly supported. Connecticut’s answer to this has been to insert language explicitly outlawing college-player prop bets. Interestingly, the bill pivots from current law, which forbids betting on Connecticut college teams, to permit wagering on local college teams under specified circumstances—an allowance already made by surrounding states.
Specifically, the legislation permits betting on Connecticut college teams that are participating in tournaments. A “permitted intercollegiate tournament,” as defined by the bill, involves an event with four or more teams that includes at least one Connecticut team, where wagers are based on the outcomes of the entire tournament. This language mirrors that found in Massachusetts law, although there have been operational hiccups there, with sportsbooks sometimes mistakenly allowing betting on local teams outside allowable situations.
Alongside these prominent aspects, the bill touches on the operational technicalities by outlining parameters for the use of independent gaming labs employed by operators. It also unequivocally bans advertising that uses “confusing” or “misleading” language, advocating for transparency and accountability in marketing strategies.
As the Connecticut General Assembly remains in session until May 8, time is ticking for the substitute bill. Having already progressed through committee, it awaits further deliberation on the House floor. Whether or not the bill will make it to law remains to be seen, but its very existence and the discussions it generates reflect a growing concern for regulation in the face of a bustling gambling industry.
This legislative activity comes at a moment when the explosion of sports betting is inextricably linked with a surge in advertising, leading to a regulatory environment ripe for “tweaking.” Regulators are grappling with the challenge of balancing market freedom with consumer protection. Such instances include Massachusetts officials intervening to halt promotions that crossed the line with claims like “CAN’T LOSE,” reminding the public that betting is never without risk.
As Connecticut forges ahead with its latest regulatory efforts, the state sets the stage for a conscientious approach to expanding gambling offerings while implementing guardrails to protect consumers and uphold the integrity of both the industry and sports themselves.
