Last week, a Connecticut committee hearing concerning a bill that adds more responsible gambling practices brought out both sides of the argument.
HB 5229, introduced by the General Law Committee, would add a number of new requirements for online sports betting and online casino operators in the state.
The joint committee did not take a vote and heard testimony on multiple bills during a more than 10-hour hearing. Connecticut’s legislature runs through May 6.
No canceling withdrawal requests
Connecticut wants bettors to be locked into their withdrawal requests outside of a specific mistake, required investigation or technical error. Operators would also be prevented from directly targeting and promoting to those who have initiated a withdrawal.
This is not a unique situation to Connecticut. In January 2021, the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement had to remind operators that its rule prohibited operators from soliciting or incentivizing withdrawal request cancelations.
“The decision to withdraw funds is often the first protective step a person takes to disengage,” said Chris Grant, Executive Director of the Lavender Policy Center. “When that decision can be undone instantly, the protective value of the action is weakened.”
Operators push back on withdrawal rules
The state’s gaming operators and their tribal gaming partners pushed back on those changes.
“We’re also unclear on what specific consumer harm this provision is designed to address,” Michael Ventre, senior manager of state government relations for FanDuel, said in his written testimony.
“Players who request withdrawals aren’t inherently engaging in problematic gambling behavior, yet this bill would treat them similarly to self-excluded individuals — despite no evidence of concerning conduct,” Ventre said. “From a consumer choice perspective, we believe players should maintain control over their own funds and financial decisions.”
The Mashantucket Pequot Indians, partnered with DraftKings for online sports betting and online casino, said in written testimony there are two reasons why it could not comply with that request. First, most withdrawals are processed quickly and so the list of those awaiting a withdrawal is always in flux. Secondly, the sensitive details involved with payment processing is not directly linked to customer marketing, which makes implementing that restriction “difficult in practice.”
Operators must offer toll-free line
HB 5229 would also require DraftKings, FanDuel and Fanatics, which offers sports betting through the Connecticut Lottery, to have a toll-free line for customers encountering issues with the platforms.
That would take a lot of stress off the small staff of the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling, Executive Director Diana Goode told the committee.
“Approximately 90 percent of calls we receive each month are unrelated to gambling harm,” Goode said.
Such a system would “inefficient and difficult to manage,” Ventre said. Customer service agents currently handle three or four chats at once, which is just one reason why a toll-free number would “create significant logistical issues both for our customer service representatives,” he added.
The Mashantucket Pequot echoed the sentiment but suggested the language could be tweaked to allowing operators to create a channel to request help that does not include an email or chat. The Connecticut Lottery had no opposition as it already offers a toll-free line.
AI helps with responsible gambling
The bill looks to end the use of AI in three ways:
- tracking a player’s bets
- creating personalized promotions
- creating a personalized gambling product, such as a microbet
Chuck Bunnell, chief of staff for the Mohegan Indians, called out that personalized marketing offers are consistent with “responsible marketing standards” and questioned the third point specifically in his testimony.
“The bill’s definition and treatment of “microbets” further compounds these concerns. If microbets are intended to refer to proposition-style wagers, such bets are already subject to extensive regulation and oversight by the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection.”
Those on the opposing side pointed how AI is a good thing for responsible gambling practices as operators can catch signs of problem gambling.
“AI helps our team of responsible gaming employees identify individuals who are showing signs of erratic gaming behaviors, or habits outside their normal baseline searching for any sort of concerning behavior/comments,” Ventre said. “We also have AI that customers can interface with, giving them access to our data/metrics to make more informed betting decisions.”
