New York Bill Banning Sports Betting on College Campuses Misses the Mark, Experts Say
A bill that would require mobile sports betting operators to block wagers placed on New York college campuses has stalled in the legislature. SB10470, sponsored by State Senator Andrew Gounardes, aims to create a narrowly tailored geographic safeguard for a population with demonstrated vulnerability. Yet industry experts question whether the measure can deliver meaningful protection or simply creates new complications.
The legislation finished the New York legislative calendar in a Senate committee. A companion bill in the Assembly met the same fate when the New York legislative session ended on June 5. Both would need to be reintroduced when the next session begins in January. From an operator perspective, this pause offers time to examine what the bill actually achieves and what it leaves unresolved.
Practical Limits of Geofencing
Douglas Mishkin, a partner at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner and former senior vice president of legal and business affairs at Metric Gaming, told Gambling Insider the bill might cut down the problem but would not solve it altogether. Legislation is rarely passed with the assumption it will 100-percent address its target.
There is some threshold where lawmakers decide the effort remains worthwhile. That threshold would require real study. Mishkin questioned what the bill is ultimately trying to solve for and whether this approach would address those concerns to any meaningful extent.
The enforcement question looms large. College campuses vary widely. GeoComply already provides geofencing services to New York and has successfully shielded granular federal parcels in the District of Columbia. Yet applying the same technology to a campus like NYU in Manhattan raises concerns about public frustration and technical snarls.
Students could simply cross the street. Mishkin observed that it was not uncommon for wagering activity to cluster right across borders when neighboring states had different legalization timelines. People interested in placing bets will still do so.
Distraction and Unintended Consequences
The bill cites concerns around distractions for college students. Mishkin pointed out that the nature of sports betting means the real distraction often comes from watching the match or event unfold rather than the wager placement itself.
He asked whether the legislation might unintentionally increase traffic to prediction markets or offshore sites where problems could be greater. That risk deserves consideration.
Brian Petrotta, an assistant professor of sports media and gambling researcher at Oklahoma State, offered tepid support. He does not think there is a downside to trying to curb access on campuses. At the same time, he is not convinced it will solve a problem.
Students are savvy. If they want to bet they can find technological workarounds. Including language covering daily fantasy sports and prediction markets may prove more important because those products serve adults 18 and up and are arguably more popular with college students.
Petrotta noted that while there may be symbolic value in university geofencing, he has a hard time believing it would produce meaningful changes in behavior. A University of Tennessee student using a VPN to bypass similar restrictions on foreign-owned social media platforms illustrated the point: the ban has not really affected her at all.
A More Targeted, User-Level Approach
The bill draws on National Council on Problem Gambling data showing individuals ages 18 to 24 experience problem gambling rates two to three times higher than the general population. It highlights the unique pressures of college environments where young adults manage independent finances for the first time.
Mishkin advocates shifting focus to the user level. Limiting the amount college-aged students could wager, how often, or when might offer broader protection than imaginary campus borders. Operators would likely resist such measures, viewing them as discriminatory based solely on student status.
He described the campus ban as probably too blunt an approach. A more practical path requires getting granular about specific behaviors, such as repeated betting during classroom hours, and building those signals into operator algorithms.
Greater information-sharing between operators and the New York State Gaming Commission combined with tech-driven mitigation could strengthen outcomes. Yet Mishkin cautioned that none of this is easy. Operators would push back on the burden, the imperfection, and the reality that even enhanced measures will not address every instance.
The Bottom Line
As someone who has spent decades observing the evolution of gaming regulation, I see this bill as an inflection point in how states approach student protection. The impulse is understandable, yet the practical limitations around geofencing, workarounds, and unintended migration to less-regulated channels suggest a need for more surgical tools. Operators and regulators should examine granular, behavior-based safeguards that extend beyond campus lines. That conversation, grounded in real data and operational feasibility, will matter more than symbolic geographic restrictions as similar proposals surface in other jurisdictions. Client-partners navigating this landscape would be wise to model both compliance costs and customer behavior shifts before the next legislative session begins.
