Legislators in New York are facing a complex challenge with two new bills aimed at creating no-bet zones on college campuses, prohibiting mobile sports wagering within these areas. The idea is simple: delineate a digital boundary around college campuses to prevent anyone within those lines from placing mobile sports bets. However, the reality involves navigating around public roads, private businesses, hospitals, student housing, and the ever-evolving landscape of campus facilities.
If Senate Bill S10470 and Assembly Bill A10526 are passed, bettors will be blocked from wagering as soon as they step foot on a college campus. The technology to enforce this restriction exists, but there are concerns about how legal sportsbooks will manage these intricate geofencing requirements within states that already permit mobile sports betting.
Assemblywoman Rebecca Kassay, who introduced A10526 in March, emphasized her team's ongoing discussions with stakeholders to gauge the potential impact on young adults’ gambling habits and how best to implement these measures. The Senate's companion bill, S10470, was introduced by Senator Andrew Gounardes in May, but his office did not comment on the matter prior to publication.
GeoComply, a provider of geolocation compliance technology to the sports betting industry, confirmed that geofencing at the property level is feasible. However, Elizabeth Cronan, GeoComply's vice president of government relations, pointed out that while the technology is capable, the real debate revolves around whether the added regulatory complexity and costs will effectively achieve the desired outcomes regarding responsible gambling.
The proposed legislation requires mobile betting operators to utilize geolocation and geofencing technology to identify and block wagers placed on college campuses. Additionally, colleges would need to supply the New York State Gaming Commission with their campus boundary information to ensure compliance. Should the bills become law, operators must adapt to these requirements by August 1, 2027. However, if they fail to advance in the current legislative session, they may need to be reintroduced next year.
Assemblywoman Kassay stressed that this initiative goes beyond mere technical solutions; it aims to spark dialogue about the risks associated with problem gambling among students. The state gaming commission would be tasked with enforcing the new regulations, including developing rules and imposing penalties for non-compliance.
A key issue remains: who will define and maintain the campus boundaries? A further complication is the potential for discrepancies between the mapped boundaries and the physical layouts of these campuses, particularly in urban settings where campus properties can span public streets and mixed-use developments. Douglas Mishkin, an attorney with Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, highlighted these difficulties, noting that the delineation of boundaries can be arduous, especially on college campuses located in populous urban areas.
Mishkin questioned how frequently boundaries would be updated, and who would bear that responsibility. He noted the implications of imprecise geofencing, wherein a boundary overly inclusive might hinder bets from eligible users, while a narrower boundary could allow unauthorized bets.
As for the ownership of the geofencing data, the legislation does not clarify who would ensure its accuracy and maintenance. Mishkin raised concerns regarding the oversight of boundary definitions, arguing that placing this burden on a single entity could lead to complications. Mismanagement could result not only in compliance issues but also in reputational damage for sportsbooks if they fail to accurately enforce the geofenced areas.
If passed, these New York proposals could influence similar legislation across other states, including Pennsylvania, where a bill mandates blocking access to K-12 school property, or Tennessee, which sought to restrict mobile betting on certain college campuses and athletic venues. In Maryland, a pilot program for no-gambling zones at local universities has already been withdrawn.
The complexity of varying laws can significantly complicate compliance, as GeoComply notes that differing state definitions and requirements can lead to higher operational costs and maintenance challenges. The burden of managing multiple overlapping geofences is expected to increase as more states explore similar restrictions.
As these proposals continue to evolve, one major takeaway remains clear: geofencing regulations will primarily impact licensed operators that are already adhering to strict player protection standards. Both GeoComply and Joe Maloney, president of the Sports Betting Alliance, believe that with the right protections in place, licensed operators can prevent underage betting more effectively than unregulated offshore sportsbooks, which have a history of facilitating such practices. Therefore, while campus geofencing aims to create safer betting environments, its effectiveness must account for the dynamics of both regulated and unregulated markets.
