Colorado lawmakers pass sports betting protections bill
Colorado lawmakers have approved a sweeping sports betting reform bill that would ban credit card use for online wagering and introduce new restrictions to curb excessive gambling.
Senate Bill 26-131 will now head to Gov. Jared Polis for his consideration after initially passing the Senate in April after a 20-14 vote.
The measure is part of a bigger push by lawmakers to support consumer protections in Colorado’s regulated sports betting market.
Under the bill, licensed sportsbook operators would be prohibited from accepting credit card deposits from bettors. Other changes would include a ban on push notifications that encourage bets or depositsMatt , and operators would also be prohibited from allowing customers to make more than six deposits in a single day.
One of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Matt Ball, noted that research has shown frequent deposits to be a sign of problem gambling.
“Deposit limits are widely recognized as an effective harm-reduction tool designed to introduce friction, slow loss-chasing behavior and reduce extreme outcomes, particularly among high-intensity users,” he told The Denver Post.
The proposal also includes tighter advertising standards for sportsbooks and their marketing affiliates. Companies would be prevented from targeting individuals under the age of 21 or placing advertisements on media platforms where most of the audience is expected to be minors.
Verticals:
Sectors:
Topics:
Dig Deeper
Related stories
The Backstory
Why Colorado’s tightening push matters now
Colorado’s latest bid to curb risky sports wagering did not arrive in a vacuum. It is the culmination of months of legislative bargaining and a broader reckoning over the speed and scale of app-based betting. Lawmakers first introduced Senate Bill 26-131 with a hard line on player prop bets, credit card funding and incessant app prompts, signaling an appetite to put guardrails around a market that has grown quickly since voters approved legalization in 2019. The bill’s sponsors framed the effort as harm reduction, citing spikes in helpline traffic and concerns about loss-chasing behavior, while emphasizing that reform would preserve, not unwind, legalization.
The measure advanced in stages. In April, the Senate approved a version that focused on deposit frictions, marketing limits and a ban on credit cards for online wagering. The chamber passed the bill 20-14, positioning Colorado among the states experimenting with deeper consumer protections after an initial period of liberal access. The package then moved to the House, setting up the final push to the governor’s desk.
The text of SB26-131 codifies many of these controls, reflecting a legislative consensus that higher-friction deposits, tighter ad rules and curbs on push notifications can blunt high-intensity play without driving the market underground. That calculus—threading the needle between safety and channelization—has become the central dilemma for states with maturing mobile markets.
From a broad crackdown to a targeted toolkit
Colorado’s bill started wider and hardened into a targeted set of tools. The earliest iteration sought to ban proposition bets on individual athletes, a flash point nationally due to integrity concerns and abusive fan behavior directed at players. As negotiations progressed, that plank was dropped amid revenue worries and operational pushback, a shift reflected when the Senate advanced a narrower package. The retreat highlights the difficulty of curbing popular bet types that draw handle, even as regulators and leagues wrestle with micro-betting risks.
What survived was a slate of measures designed to introduce friction and reduce inducements. The bill bars credit card deposits, caps the number of deposits a bettor can make in a single day, and restricts push alerts that spur bets or reloads. It also tightens advertising, from daypart limits to curbs on promotions that emphasize enhanced payouts or step-by-step wagering tactics. Operators would be required to report data annually, supporting a public industry report on a multiyear cycle beginning later this decade.
The deposit cap is notable. Sponsors pointed to research linking rapid, repeated top-ups to loss-chasing spirals. Colorado’s approach adopts a structural limit rather than relying solely on voluntary self-limits, seeking to slow session intensity. Paired with a credit card ban, the state is explicitly targeting ease of access to borrowed funds and real-time reloading—two levers often flagged by clinicians and public health researchers.
A shifting national baseline on protections
The legislative arc in Colorado mirrors a wider trend: states layering consumer rules onto mobile markets after a first wave of legalization set permissive defaults. A recent scorecard by the Center for Addiction Science, Policy and Research graded consumer protections across the country and found that jurisdictions with online casinos and sportsbooks lagged far behind those without them. The analysis ranked Massachusetts the safest among online states yet still short of a high bar, and it flagged policy levers like mandatory loss limits, prop and micro-bet restrictions, and credit card bans as meaningful interventions. The report is available at CASPR’s state gambling scorecard.
Colorado’s mix overlaps with several of those levers. The proposed credit card ban aligns with a growing, if uneven, push among regulators to separate wagering from revolving debt. Its mandatory deposit ceiling leans toward the “hard” controls that public health advocates say are more reliable than opt-in tools. And its ad limits reflect a broader pullback from aggressive acquisition tactics—especially during daytime and family-viewing windows—seen in markets grappling with saturation and political fatigue.
At the same time, the state’s retreat from a blanket prop-bet ban shows the political and fiscal trade-offs embedded in reform. Many states are searching for the line between reducing harm and maintaining enough legal liquidity to keep bettors from migrating to offshore sites that face no constraints.
Industry pushback and the leakage question
Operator resistance has centered on two themes: competitiveness and unintended consequences. During the initial rollout, industry representatives warned that aggressive limits, especially on bet types and deposits, could push higher-value customers to unregulated platforms. That message has resonated in other debates. In Rhode Island, a Senate-approved plan to open a state-controlled market to more licensees stalled in the House, with entrenched concerns from the state lottery and its vendor about market disruption. The bill to expand the market, Senate Bill 748, ultimately died without a House hearing, preserving a single-operator status quo for at least another year. The legislative text and documents remain posted on LegiScan and the Rhode Island General Assembly site, while contemporaneous coverage by Rhode Island Current captured the late-session tensions.
Colorado’s sponsors acknowledged the risk of leakage but argue the package is calibrated: it preserves mainstream markets while dulling the sharpest edges of problematic play. The ultimate test will be behavioral. If handle or hold shift meaningfully to gray markets after the rules take effect, lawmakers may face pressure to revisit specific constraints. Conversely, if helpline calls, self-exclusions or bank charge-off metrics improve, Colorado could become a template for iterative tightening elsewhere.
Other states are recalibrating too
Colorado’s move lands as other states reassess their posture. In Wisconsin, a lawmaker pushing to modernize wagering framed a pending measure as a way to bring mobile betting under tribal compacts while decriminalizing individual bets. He said he believed the bill could clear the Assembly despite calendar pressure. The effort, described in reporting on Wisconsin’s late-session maneuvering, underscores how some states are still grappling with basic market structure—who can offer what, to whom, and where servers must sit—before turning to the kinds of consumer refinements Colorado is adopting.
Meanwhile, Rhode Island’s pause on expansion highlights a different axis: concentration versus competition. Proponents of opening the market to multiple operators argued more choice could yield better tools and transparency. Skeptics warned of fragmentation and promotional intensity. Colorado’s debate, centered on safety features within an already competitive market, offers a third path—one that other jurisdictions may study regardless of their market model.
What to watch as rules take hold
Assuming enactment, Colorado regulators will need to translate statutory directives into operational standards, enforcement protocols and data definitions. The bill’s reporting requirements, which phase into a public review cadence later in the decade, will matter only if the underlying data are comparable across operators and meaningful to policymakers. Expect early scrutiny of how “deposit” is defined for daily caps, the scope of banned push notifications, and the mechanics of a credit card prohibition across payment rails and intermediaries.
The state’s experience could feed back into national debates already influenced by public health benchmarks like CASPR’s scorecard. If the package demonstrates that targeted friction can curb the riskiest behavior without collapsing the legal market, copycat bills may surface. If not, Colorado may be pulled into the same contentious trade-offs other states now face: whether to tighten further with harder controls such as mandatory loss limits or to loosen rules to thwart offshore competition.
Either way, the stakes extend beyond one state’s balance sheet. Colorado’s next phase is a test of whether mature mobile markets can build sustainable consumer protections that keep bettors onshore, protect vulnerable users and maintain public support for a still-young industry.
