New Jersey lawmaker aims for ban on microbetting
A New Jersey lawmaker has introduced a bill to ban microbetting, a form of sports betting that he says can fuel impulsive gambling and lead to financial ruin, particularly for young people.
The bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Dan Hutchinson, would ban bets on in-game moments, such as the outcome of a coin toss or a single pitch.
Hutchinson told CBS News that he was most concerned about the effect on young people, and plans to curb impulsive gambling, adding, “protecting our citizens from the dopamine-type effects that this type of betting has on people — we need to protect those people.”
His bill comes at a time when federal investigators are probing illegal gambling accusations involving NBA players and a coach, in which prop bets are a key factor.
Hutchison, whose experience is as a bankruptcy attorney, said he’s seen firsthand the effects of sports betting. He was supported by gambling counselor Dr. Harry Levant, who said that microbetting was a dangerous and defective product because of its speed and highly addictive nature.
Levant, a certified gambling counselor, called microbetting “a dangerous and defectively designed product,” saying the speed and constant stimuli make it highly addictive.
Hutchison and Levant emphasized that they support legalized sports betting, but both said that they wanted much stronger safeguards to protect vulnerable players.
A similar motion to ban prop bets can also be seen in Ohio, with Gov. Mike DeWine pushing for a ban after two Cleveland Guardians pitchers were placed on leave because of an ongoing gambling probe.
Charlotte Capewell brings her passion for storytelling and expertise in writing, researching, and the gambling industry to every article she writes. Her specialties include the US gambling industry, regulator legislation, igaming, and more.
Verticals:
Sectors:
Topics:
Dig Deeper
Related stories
The Backstory
Microbetting’s rise and the new regulatory flashpoint
New Jersey’s move to curb microbetting lands at the intersection of explosive market growth and mounting integrity concerns. Microbetting lets fans wager on fleeting, in-game moments — a single pitch, the next play, a coin toss — compressing the bet cycle into seconds and amplifying frequency and dopamine-driven engagement. That design has drawn scrutiny from problem-gambling advocates and regulators worried about harm to younger audiences and people vulnerable to addiction. It has also become entangled with integrity questions as federal investigators probe illegal betting tied to professional athletes and staff.
Recent headlines have intensified pressure on policymakers. New Jersey authorities have grappled with a widening sports gambling scandal that put the state’s oversight in the spotlight, including reports of suspicious betting tied to professional leagues. For a local snapshot of the concern, see CBS Philadelphia’s coverage of a sports betting scandal in New Jersey, which underscores why micro-level wagers and player-driven props are drawing scrutiny. The speed and specificity of these bets make them lucrative engagement tools for operators but also magnify risks that regulators say are harder to police in real time.
The debate is not whether legal sports betting should exist — New Jersey has built a national template — but how far to limit the most rapid, granular forms of wagering that can fuel harassment, manipulate markets or trigger financial harm. That is the backdrop for the latest push to restrict microbetting in the Garden State.
Ohio’s split screen: revenue, freedom and integrity
The national fault lines are on full display in Ohio, where a bid to curb prop bets has met immediate resistance. Gov. Mike DeWine urged the state’s casino regulator to prohibit player props in professional sports after two Cleveland Guardians pitchers were sidelined amid a gambling probe, citing athlete safety and game integrity. His office’s position is detailed in the state release, DeWine calls on the Casino Control Commission to remove prop bets, which frames the issue as a failed experiment with outsized risks compared with benefits.
But legislative leaders counter that adults should be free to place such wagers and that prop markets contribute meaningfully to tax receipts. In a rebuke that previewed a larger fight over the boundaries of in-play wagering, state Rep. Brian Stewart publicly opposed a ban, emphasizing both consumer choice and revenue. Stewart’s stance is captured in coverage of Ohio’s legislative pushback and his post on X stating that “prop bets are a big part” of Ohio’s tax base; see Stewart’s statement on X. The split in Ohio hints at a broader regulatory divergence: some states are moving to narrow in-play markets to protect athletes and fans, while others prioritize consumer latitude and fiscal gains from a popular product.
New Jersey narrows college props as harassment fears grow
New Jersey has already moved to limit a slice of in-play betting by targeting college player props. A bill to ban player-specific prop wagers on college sports advanced out of a Senate committee without opposition, reflecting a rare point of bipartisan alignment around athlete harassment and integrity threats. The measure, described in reporting on SB 3080’s committee passage, would prohibit bets on individual college athletes even as standard game lines remain legal.
The NCAA has pressed states to eliminate those markets, arguing that granular betting magnifies the incentive to target student-athletes online and in person. When the NCAA inked a data-sharing deal with Genius Sports in May, it reportedly barred the company from offering odds on negative college player props, an attempt to blunt some of the most pernicious bet types. In New Jersey, the college-prop measure signals a willingness to chip away at high-friction wagers that feed harassment, setting the stage for the state’s larger look at microbetting and whether certain in-game bets can be policed without multiplying risk.
Sweepstakes crackdown reveals competing visions for consumer protection
The state is simultaneously weighing another corner of the wagering ecosystem: promotional sweepstakes and so-called social contests that operate outside traditional gambling laws. Lawmakers passed Assembly Bill 5447 to rein in the sector, but industry groups say the bill overreaches and threatens legitimate promotions that require no purchase to enter. The Social and Promotional Games Association urged Gov. Phil Murphy to veto the bill, warning that innovation and lawful marketing would be chilled. Their arguments are outlined in coverage of the SPGA’s veto request, with additional background on the organization’s standards at the SPGA’s policy page. The legislative text is posted at LegiScan’s A5447 bill tracker.
The sweepstakes fight is not just a side skirmish. It highlights the core policy tension running through sports betting and adjacent products: where to draw lines between consumer choice and risk, and whether the default posture should be prohibition or tailored regulation. As New Jersey considers restricting microbetting to curb impulsive gambling and abuse, the state is also deciding how to treat promotional models that straddle entertainment and wagering. The outcome will help define the state’s regulatory identity in a maturing market.
A global lens: illegal operators test borders and resolve
The risks that come with fast, digital wagering are not confined to state lines. Overseas, the Philippines has launched a sweeping crackdown on offshore gambling operators, known as POGOs, after linking them to money laundering, trafficking and cyber-enabled fraud. The Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Commission aims to stamp out illegal POGOs this year, as detailed in coverage of the PAOCC’s enforcement push. The campaign follows President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s July order to ban POGOs and a follow-on deadline for remaining firms to shut down, steps chronicled by regional trade press at Asia Gaming Brief’s report on the immediate ban and a later update as the deadline neared showing dozens still operating, with 47 POGOs still active.
Philippine lawmakers now want to harden the ban through legislation and cross-border cooperation. Senate Deputy Minority Leader Risa Hontiveros is pressing an Anti-POGO Act and calling for coordination across ASEAN and with Western governments to dismantle scam hubs and protect trafficking victims, according to reporting on the Anti-POGO initiative. For U.S. regulators wrestling with microbetting, the Philippine experience is a cautionary reminder: when legitimate markets fail to balance growth with guardrails, illicit actors find demand. That risk reinforces the stakes in New Jersey’s debate. A calibrated framework that curbs the most harmful bet types while sustaining a legal, transparent market can shrink the gray areas where bad actors thrive.
Together, these developments sketch a clear trajectory. States are drawing sharper lines around in-play bets that fuel harassment and addiction, even as they defend the core of legal sports wagering. New Jersey’s scrutiny of microbetting fits that pattern. The policy choices ahead — whether to limit certain bet types, how to address promotional sweepstakes, and how to coordinate across jurisdictions — will determine whether the market’s next phase is defined by sustainable growth or by a cycle of restriction after crisis. The stakes reach beyond tax revenue: they touch athlete safety, consumer well-being and confidence in the integrity of the games themselves.
