Thesis: In the US, online gambling policy isn’t set in a vacuum—it’s negotiated in plain sight by tribes, commercial sportsbooks, DFS/sweepstakes firms, lotteries, leagues, fintech/KYC vendors, and public-health advocates. The fault lines aren’t simply “for” or “against” gambling; they’re about who gets to operate, under what definition, and on whose terms.
The New Federal Wildcard
In March 2025, Congress introduced the SAFE Bet Act, a federal attempt to impose “minimum standards” on advertising, affordability checks, and uses of AI in sports betting—potentially re-writing what had been a state-by-state patchwork since PASPA fell in 2018. Whether or not it passes, just the draft reframes lobbying at two levels: state capitals and Washington. Tribes, operators, leagues, broadcasters, and harm-prevention groups now have reason to coordinate federal positions alongside state campaigns.
Case Study: California Shows How Definitions Are Policy
California remains the biggest prize—and the best example of definition-driven lobbying.
- DFS Legality: In July 2025, the state AG’s opinion deemed popular DFS pick’em formats illegal gambling under state law, triggering political blowback and rapid product pivots while lawsuits flew. Tribes’ long-running push to control online betting loomed over the debate, but the core policy hinge was definitional: what counts as fantasy vs. a sports bet?
- Tribes vs. Commercial Operators—Round Two: After 2022’s billion-dollar ballot war, 2025 brought a thaw: operators explored a tribal-led online framework for a future ballot attempt. Consensus among 100+ sovereign governments is slow, but the signal is clear—no California online market without tribes in the driver’s seat.
- Sweepstakes Crackdown: A separate track moved in parallel—AB 831, advancing a statewide ban on online sweepstakes casinos effective January 1, 2026, if signed. Again, definition is destiny: lawmakers are closing a “promotional sweepstakes” lane now used for casino-like gameplay.
Enforcement as Policy: Arizona & Michigan
In 2025, Arizona escalated cease-and-desist actions against unlicensed online sites across both sweepstakes casinos and sports betting look-alikes; Michigan did the same. These actions don’t just “enforce the rules”; they narrow the business models that can credibly raise capital.
Your angle: Explain how episodic crackdowns plus clearer definitions can reduce lobbying arms races by shrinking gray areas that invite expensive fights.
Why Tribes Are Central in Any Durable US Framework
US online gambling is still anchored in tribal sovereignty in key states. California exemplifies the leverage: even commercial giants now talk about tribal-controlled umbrellas online. The industry lesson: sustainable legalization happens when stakeholders align economics with sovereignty and responsible-gaming optics.
Your angle: Offer a negotiation blueprint—revenue-share corridors, brand licensing with tribal platforms, RG/AML “above baseline” commitments, and co-governance on data transparency—to avoid another Prop 27-style burn.
The Next Lobbying Battlegrounds (and What to Watch)
- Advertising & Affordability: If SAFE Bet (or a variant) advances, expect national-level fights over ad timing, inducement language, and income-verification triggers—issues that directly hit growth marketing.
- AI & Personalization: Federal standards could restrict high-granularity targeting or on-site prompts—pressuring operators to prove guardrails without blunting UX.
- “Fantasy 2.0” Product Pivots: P2P and bracket/prop-style games will keep testing the line between contest skill and betting—expect continuing AG opinions and negotiated legislative carve-outs.
- Sweepstakes Clarifications: More states may mirror Arizona, Michigan, or California’s AB 831 path, forcing real, readily accessible no-purchase options and content moderation—or pushing the model out altogether.
A Practical, Non-Partisan Reform Package
If you want to stake out a constructive, non-adversarial position:
- Ad Hygiene: Adopt daytime and live-event ad limits voluntarily where feasible; kill “risk-free/bonus” phrasing that regulators target first. Tie this to first-party RG tooling.
- Affordability “Nudges,” Not Blanket Caps: Pilot opt-in income-aware limits and friction at loss thresholds, disclosed in plain English—publish aggregate outcomes quarterly.
- Definition Transparency: Publish your operating definition of DFS vs. betting vs. sweepstakes, with gameplay and cash-flow diagrams. Invite regulators and tribes to red-line it before launch to cut later fights.
- Tribal Partnership by Design: In tribal states, lead with tribal-owned platforms or revenue-first models (not just token advisory boards). Pair with shared data on RG effectiveness and fraud.
- Enforcement Alignment: Support crackdowns on truly unlicensed sites to level the field and prove that compliant actors want clean markets.
