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
Why microbetting is under new scrutiny
New Jersey’s push to ban microbetting lands amid a wider rethinking of how far real-time wagers should go in a maturing U.S. sports betting market. Microbetting—fast, repeated wagers on in-game moments such as a single pitch or the next play—has grown alongside app-based sportsbooks and algorithmic pricing. But it has also become a policy flash point: integrity investigators say micro- and player props can be weaponized for spot fixing, while public health advocates warn the speed and stimuli can drive compulsive play, especially among younger bettors.
That context helps explain why the call to curtail microbets is no longer a niche position. In Ohio, the Republican governor has asked regulators to shut down most prop bets in professional sports, citing threats to athletes and game integrity. His office detailed the request in a public memo to the Casino Control Commission, asserting the benefits “are not worth the harm” and pressing for swift action. At the same time, an alleged betting scheme involving professional basketball players and a coach has kept prop markets under an investigative spotlight nationally, while a recent CBS Philadelphia report on a sports betting probe added public pressure in a state that helped pioneer legal wagering.
As New Jersey considers a tighter line on in-play wagering, policymakers face a familiar tradeoff: whether to prune product features that drive engagement to preserve integrity and reduce harm, or to rely on enforcement and consumer tools while allowing the market to evolve. The stakes are high for operators that have leaned on micro- and player prop menus to differentiate products and for states balancing tax revenue against rising political and regulatory risk.
Ohio’s split-screen: limits vs growth
The debate is most visible in Columbus, where the governor’s campaign to restrict props has met open resistance from legislative leadership. Representative Brian Stewart has opposed a blanket ban, arguing props are core to customer demand and contribute materially to tax receipts. He underscored that stance in a post on X and in remarks reported by Complete iGaming, saying adults should be free to bet and that “props are a big part of that.” Stewart’s position is detailed in coverage of his objection to the governor’s push, which also notes that college props are already prohibited in Ohio.
The governor’s request is formalized in a public directive to the commission, available on the state site: Governor DeWine’s call to remove prop bets. Stewart amplified his case on social media, writing that he would work to keep props legal as part of a broader defense of the betting framework Ohio adopted in 2023. His post is archived here: Stewart’s X statement.
The disagreement comes as Stewart pursues expansion elsewhere. He is drafting a bill to legalize online poker and casino games, a move he says could bolster state revenue without raising taxes. The proposal, reported in coverage of Ohio’s iGaming effort, follows a state-commissioned study that found online gaming can lift tax collections without undercutting in-person lottery sales. Ohio’s split-screen—tightening on one side of the market while exploring growth on another—captures the recalibration underway in many states.
New Jersey’s parallel crackdown on sweepstakes models
Even as Trenton weighs microbetting limits, lawmakers have already moved against another fast-growing gray zone: sweepstakes-style sports prediction apps that mimic sportsbooks by using virtual currency to facilitate cash-equivalent bets. Days after Gov. Phil Murphy signed a bill targeting that model, the operator Novig said it would exit the state. The decision is detailed in reporting on Novig’s New Jersey withdrawal, which ties the pullback to Assembly Bill 5447.
For the statutory text, see New Jersey A5447 on LegiScan. The law effectively bans dual-currency sweepstakes schemes that had allowed companies to operate without a traditional wagering license. Novig, which had pivoted from a licensed sportsbook in Colorado to a sweepstakes model to scale faster, has also faced scrutiny elsewhere. Arizona regulators issued a cease-and-desist over alleged unlicensed activity, documented in a public filing: Arizona Department of Gaming cease-and-desist press release.
The New Jersey action signals that while the state embraced legal sports betting early and at scale, it is prepared to draw bright lines against models that blur consumer protections and oversight. That posture aligns with a national trend: Connecticut and Montana have passed similar restrictions, with California and New York considering action, reflecting growing discomfort with products that sit outside standard regulatory guardrails.
Legislatures weigh expansion against retail risks
Beyond props and sweepstakes models, statehouses are debating if and how to expand legal online gambling. In Illinois, a push to authorize online casinos remains alive even as the legislative clock winds down. Representative Bob Rita has kept the door open despite resistance from retail casinos and businesses reliant on video gaming terminals. The stakes for local venues and small operators are outlined in reporting on Illinois’ iGaming prospects, which notes bills have stalled but could resurface late in session.
That balancing act mirrors Ohio’s. While Stewart drafts his iGaming bill, he opposes curbs on popular bet types that underpin engagement. The tension is straightforward: states want to tap digital revenue streams, but each new product category raises questions about substitution away from brick-and-mortar gambling, consumer protection, and the compliance burden for regulators. Lawmakers are increasingly forcing operators to prove that incremental tax gains do not come at the expense of integrity or community impacts.
Payment controls emerge as a new chokepoint
Internationally, regulators are targeting payments to curb illicit and high-risk gambling activity, offering a glimpse of tools that could migrate to U.S. debates. In the Philippines, the central bank moved to restrict payment service providers from facilitating online gambling, imposing daily caps, time windows and mandatory declines for excess transactions. Senate Deputy Minority Leader Juan Miguel Zubiri welcomed the move as a stopgap while lawmakers pursue a broader ban, as detailed in coverage of the Philippines’ payment crackdown. The senator’s formal statement is posted by the Senate: Philippine Senate press release.
Payment throttles and bank-level controls are gaining traction because they reduce the need for whack-a-mole enforcement against operators and affiliates. For U.S. regulators wrestling with microbetting and gray-market models, payments represent a complementary lever: cut off the money and the riskiest products become harder to scale. That approach could surface in forthcoming policy packages as states try to preserve the economic upside of legal gambling while reining in segments most implicated in harm, harassment of athletes and integrity concerns.
Taken together, New Jersey’s consideration of a microbetting ban, Ohio’s tug-of-war over props, the squeeze on sweepstakes operations and the rise of payment controls show an industry in mid-course correction. Policymakers are not pulling back from legalized gambling; they are redefining its boundaries. The next phase will likely prioritize guardrails—on product design, bet types and transaction flows—over raw expansion, with tax revenue goals increasingly conditioned on demonstrable safeguards.
