Pennsylvania mulls tighter gambling laws, criticizing in-play bet incentives
A Pennsylvania bipartisan Joint State Government Commission and the state’s gambling regulator have published recommendations for stricter online gambling laws to protect players.
While the joint committee anticipates some legislative hurdles in pushing its recommendations through, the two-pronged effort from both law makers and the regulator would suggest a level of reform is imminent.
The Pennsylvania Gambling Control Board’s recommendations were published in the PA Bulletin on 11 July, while the Joint State Government Commission’s 126-page staff study, Sports Betting and Related Interactive Gambling in Pennsylvania, was published on 13 July.
The latter was directed by House Resolution No. 60 in May to investigate problem gambling and its consequences, the effect of gambling on college student-athletes, children’s exposure to gambling advertising and ways to mitigate harm.
Wide-ranging recommendations
Both documents respond to data suggesting that gambling harm is on the rise in Pennsylvania, with increasing addiction leading to associated social ills such as debt, domestic violence, college athletes suffering abuse and mounting mental health and suicide risks.
In response, the two documents suggest a range of amendments to existing laws and regulations, with the regulator’s suggestions already under consultation.
These include increasing protections for minors, improving self-exclusion mechanisms, restricting advertising, marketing and other inducements to gamble, banning terms like “free” or “risk-free” in ads, banning the use of credit cards and restricting the use of VIP programs.
The Joint State Government Commission also recommended that, “Actual player data from the licensees should be collected, anonymized and independently evaluated to distinguish the more harmful offerings from the less harmful offerings so that the Commonwealth can be more precise in its pursuit of objectives that are contradictory for its regulators, licensees, and adult consumers.”
Restricting in-play betting was also a particular concern for the Joint State Government Commission, as fears grow that micro-betting features are a catalyst for gambling harm.
Citing Mordor Intelligence’s 2026 U.S. Online Gambling Market Size and Share Analysis-Growth Trends and Forecast (2026- 2031), the Joint State Government Commission’s report predicted the US online gambling market to grow at a 16.51% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) from 2026-2031.
The report highlighted the growing prominence of in-play betting, which it said accounts for 40% of sports betting handle during live events.
Momentum towards reform
One way the Joint State Government Commission proposes pushing through reform of in-play rules is to prohibit push notifications encouraging players to place in-play bets while already in engaging with a platform.
“The restriction directly advances the government’s substantial interest in mitigating compulsive in-play gambling behaviors without entirely prohibiting the operator’s ability to advertise outside the application,” the report said.
The regulator did not mention in-play directly but does propose curtailing direct marketing efforts and offering players more ways to opt out of marketing and place limits on their own accounts.
“The recommendations are divided between a more deliberate measure and more immediate ones. The deliberate measure would use actual player data to generate responses to more precisely protect gamblers while continuing to maximize revenue. The more immediate measures would target indicators of problem gambling that would protect gamblers but diminish revenue less precisely than the deliberate recommendation,” the Joint State Government Commission stated.
“Regardless which if any of the recommendations are fulfilled, the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board’s proposed regulatory amendments targeting compulsive and problem gambling would likely advance its efforts to address this problem as well,” it added.
In June, Pennsylvania Rep. Jason Ortitay proposed legislation to block users from accessing sports betting and igaming platforms while on school property.
Dig Deeper
Related stories
2026/04/13: Researchers, lawmakers call for tighter regulations on Australia’s gambling ad ban
2025/07/16: DraftKings mulls acquisition of prediction market Railbird Exchange
2025/10/14: Robinhood vice president mulls prediction platform growth via acquisition or JV
2026/01/07: Lawsuit alleges DraftKings violates numerous states’ igaming laws
2026/04/13: Researchers, lawmakers call for tighter regulations on Australia’s gambling ad ban
2025/07/16: DraftKings mulls acquisition of prediction market Railbird Exchange
2025/10/14: Robinhood vice president mulls prediction platform growth via acquisition or JV
2026/01/07: Lawsuit alleges DraftKings violates numerous states’ igaming laws
The Backstory
Reform push follows a wider backlash
Pennsylvania’s move toward tighter gambling rules is part of a broader reassessment of how quickly online betting has expanded and how slowly consumer safeguards have followed. Since the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for states to legalize sports wagering in 2018, lawmakers have largely focused on licensing, tax revenue and shifting bettors away from offshore markets. The next phase is increasingly about whether the regulated market has built enough protections around products designed for constant engagement.
The Pennsylvania review lands as regulators, courts and public health advocates in other jurisdictions are challenging the industry’s assumptions. In California, consumer protection law firms have filed class action lawsuits against daily fantasy sports operators, alleging companies offered illegal sports betting under another label. The cases against FanDuel, DraftKings, PrizePicks and Underdog were followed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s opinion that daily fantasy sports contests are illegal in the state. That sequence underscored a recurring tension: products can scale quickly before regulators settle whether they are lawful, sufficiently disclosed or appropriately restricted.
In Pennsylvania, the debate is not about whether online sports betting and casino games are legal. They are established parts of the gambling market. The question is whether the rules governing advertising, inducements, credit, self-exclusion and high-frequency betting have kept pace with a market increasingly built around mobile access and real-time prompts.
Consumer protection has become the weak point
The pressure on Pennsylvania has been amplified by outside assessments arguing that most legal online gambling states remain underprotected. A March report from the Center for Addiction Science, Policy and Research gave states with online sports betting or igaming poor marks for consumer safeguards, while states without online gambling scored higher. As reported in the state-by-state consumer protection review, Massachusetts was the highest-scoring legal online gambling state at 62 out of 100, while Delaware received only five points.
The scorecard’s methodology rewarded policies such as mandatory loss limits, bans on prop and micro bets, required operator intervention, credit card restrictions and blocks on in-app betting. Those criteria mirror several areas now under discussion in Pennsylvania. The state’s regulator has proposed steps that would narrow marketing practices, strengthen self-exclusion and limit language such as “free” or “risk-free” in promotions. The Joint State Government Commission went further by recommending use of anonymized player data to identify which products and behavioral patterns are most associated with harm.
That data-driven approach reflects a core policy problem. States benefit from legal gambling revenue and have an interest in maintaining regulated markets. But regulators are also responsible for reducing addiction, debt, family disruption and other harms tied to excessive gambling. Broad restrictions may curb harm but also reduce tax receipts and operator revenue. Narrower rules require better evidence about where risks are concentrated. Pennsylvania’s report attempts to bridge that divide by calling for actual player data rather than relying mainly on surveys, anecdotes or industry assurances.
Live betting raises the urgency
The sharpest concern centers on in-play betting and micro-betting, features that allow users to wager during a game on rapidly changing outcomes. These products are valuable to operators because they extend engagement beyond a pregame bet and generate more opportunities to wager. They also create a more continuous betting environment, especially when paired with push notifications, same-game parlays and live odds feeds.
Pennsylvania’s commission highlighted in-play betting as an area where consumer protection rules may need to be more specific. Its recommendation to prohibit push notifications encouraging in-play bets while a user is already active on a platform targets the link between product design and compulsive behavior. Rather than banning live betting outright, that type of rule would reduce prompts that may intensify wagering during moments of heightened emotion.
The issue also connects to sports integrity and athlete welfare. College athletes have become more exposed to abuse from bettors, particularly when individual player performance is tied to wagering outcomes. The NCAA’s decision to add ProhiBet from IC360 to its integrity systems, detailed in its partnership to monitor prohibited bettors during Division I championships, shows how sports bodies are trying to contain risks that followed legalization. Integrity monitoring can detect prohibited wagering by athletes, coaches and staff, but it does less to address the broader environment in which bettors target college athletes online after losing wagers.
That is why Pennsylvania lawmakers are looking not only at gambling addiction but also at the effect of betting on college student-athletes. The state’s review treats athlete abuse, youth exposure and compulsive gambling as linked outcomes of the same mobile-first market.
Advertising rules are becoming a global pressure point
Advertising is another area where Pennsylvania is moving in step with a wider policy shift. Sports betting brands have relied heavily on bonuses, celebrity endorsements, broadcast integrations and digital targeting to build market share. As competition matured, regulators began scrutinizing whether promotions blur the true cost of wagering or normalize gambling among younger audiences.
Pennsylvania’s proposed restrictions on terms such as “free” and “risk-free” align with that broader trend. Such language has drawn criticism because promotional bets often come with conditions that consumers may not understand. Banning those terms would not eliminate promotions, but it would force operators to describe them more plainly.
Other markets are wrestling with more complex advertising channels. In Australia, researchers and lawmakers have warned that a proposed partial gambling ad ban may leave gaps around podcasts, social media influencers and streaming platforms. The debate, described in coverage of calls for tighter gambling advertising rules in Australia, shows how difficult it is to regulate wagering messages when content is embedded in host reads, influencer posts or shared household accounts. Opt-out tools and age gates may be less effective when families share devices or when ads are part of the content itself.
Those concerns are relevant for Pennsylvania because gambling marketing no longer depends only on television spots or stadium signage. Direct digital marketing, personalized offers and in-app prompts can reach consumers at the moment they are most likely to wager. The state regulator’s push to give users more control over marketing and account limits reflects an attempt to regulate that more personalized ecosystem.
Industry growth collides with tighter oversight
The stakes are high because the online gambling market continues to expand. Operators and suppliers are investing in regulated igaming infrastructure, content and communications as they position for long-term growth. Light & Wonder’s effort to hire a director of igaming communications, reported in coverage of its push to strengthen its global regulated-market strategy, illustrates how major suppliers are building capacity around reputation, policy engagement and market access.
That corporate focus reflects a more complicated operating environment. Companies want to present themselves as trusted partners in regulated markets, not merely as vendors chasing handle or game revenue. At the same time, lawmakers are becoming less willing to rely on voluntary responsible gambling tools. The emerging policy direction favors enforceable requirements: clearer advertising standards, stronger self-exclusion, limits on payment methods, intervention duties and product-specific rules for higher-risk bet types.
For Pennsylvania, the practical question is how far lawmakers will go. The state has one of the most mature online gambling markets in the country, making any tightening of rules significant beyond its borders. If Pennsylvania adopts stronger restrictions while preserving a profitable regulated market, it could give other states a model for recalibrating their own frameworks. If reforms stall, public health advocates are likely to point to rising gambling harms as evidence that legalization has outpaced oversight.
The current recommendations therefore mark more than a routine regulatory update. They are part of a national and international shift from market creation to market discipline. The next test is whether Pennsylvania can translate consensus about gambling harm into rules that survive industry resistance, legislative trade-offs and the state’s own dependence on gambling revenue.
