The National Council of Legislators from Gaming States (NCLGS) recently introduced a model iGaming bill aimed at standardizing regulations across the United States. While the proposal has garnered significant support, one provision—the ban on credit card deposits—has sparked controversy among lawmakers and industry experts.
David Rebuck, former Director of New Jersey’s Division of Gaming Enforcement, expressed skepticism about the ban, arguing that it lacks sufficient evidence to justify its inclusion. Credit cards are widely accepted in states with regulated iGaming and sports betting, making the proposed prohibition appear unnecessarily restrictive.
Political Realities Behind the Ban
Despite data suggesting that credit card deposits are manageable with proper safeguards, the political landscape complicates the issue. New Hampshire Senator Tim Lang, who previously pushed for iGaming legalization, described including credit card usage in bills as “political suicide.”
Lang’s experience highlights resistance from key stakeholders, including brick-and-mortar casinos, which fear that online gaming could cannibalize their business. Removing credit card deposits from legislation, while not necessarily data-driven, could make bills more palatable to lawmakers concerned about re-election.
Practicality vs. Politics
NCLGS President Shawn Fluharty emphasized the need for a pragmatic approach when drafting model legislation. Educating lawmakers on gaming industry realities remains a challenge, and proposals must balance practicality with political feasibility. By addressing contentious issues like credit card usage, legislators can increase the likelihood of successful passage.
Balancing Policy and Perception
The debate over credit card bans reflects a broader tension between data-backed policies and political realities. While opponents argue that restrictions are unnecessary, proponents view the ban as a safeguard against problem gambling. Ultimately, crafting effective iGaming legislation requires balancing public perception, industry interests, and regulatory oversight.
