I have never placed a sports bet in my life, and likely never will.

I don’t have a DraftKings account, and I couldn’t tell you how FanDuel works. I couldn’t tell you the point spread in this year’s World Cup final. Not because I don’t like sports — I do, and I watch plenty — but because I’m too cheap to put my money behind my predictions.

But as lawmakers increasingly push to restrict sports betting advertisements, I’m left defending an industry I never thought much about.

Politicians must not get to decide what information adults can and cannot be trusted to see.

Across the United States, state legislators are proposing new restrictions on how legal sportsbooks market themselves. Some want tighter advertising rules. Others support proposals like the SAFE Bet Act, which would impose affordability checks, bet limits, and other restrictions on sports betting.

Supporters argue they are necessary to protect consumers, particularly children. Their concerns are legitimate. Gambling addiction is real. People who struggle with it deserve help. But good intentions rarely lead to good policies.

Sports betting is now legal in 39 states, including Washington, D.C. Of those, 30 states allow bets to be placed through mobile apps and websites.

Since the Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on sports betting in 2018, it seems most states have concluded a regulated market is preferable to forcing gambling underground.

That means the debate is no longer about whether sports betting should exist. Americans have answered that question with a resounding yes. The real debate is whether bureaucrats and states should make it harder for tax-paying companies to communicate with customers.

Most supporters of advertising restrictions seem to assume fewer advertisements will lead to less gambling. That might sound reasonable until you think about it. Americans did not discover gambling because they saw a commercial during a football game or on the local news. Sports betting existed long before apps like DraftKings or FanDuel were created. They bet through neighborhood bookies and office pools, back when sports betting was illegal, and they will continue to do so regardless of how many commercials air.

The question isn’t whether people will gamble. It’s whether they’ll do so through regulated companies that verify ages and cooperate with law enforcement, or through back-alley operators that do none of those things.

That’s why the SAFE Bet Act is bad policy. Restricting legal operators may not reduce gambling nearly as much as supporters hope, but it could make regulated gambling less competitive against illegal alternatives.

Strong evidence also shows that Americans recognize the difference between regulated gaming and irresponsible gaming. According to a recent survey by the American Gaming Association, 64% of Americans think the gaming industry is committed to responsible gaming. Among sports bettors, that number rises to 84%.

Critics frequently bring up children when arguing for stricter advertising regulations. Protecting minors is certainly a worthy goal, as no reasonable person wants children to gamble. But protecting minors and restricting speech do not have to go hand in hand.

According to a recent Common Sense Media survey, 36% of boys ages 11 to 17 admitted to making an online bet at least once during the past year. However, 60% of those same boys said advertisements did not prompt them to gamble. Among those who gambled, the average amount spent was $54 over the course of a year — hardly the financial destitution implied by those supporting such advertising restrictions.

That doesn’t mean underage gambling should be ignored. Rather, it means policymakers should base their decisions on actual evidence. More broadly, adults should not be denied information about legal products because some individuals may abuse them.

Every day, Americans are flooded with advertisements for products that carry risks. Beer companies advertise during football games. Credit card companies encourage consumers to spend money that they don’t have. Pharmaceutical companies promote medications with lengthy lists of side effects.

Yet we generally recognize restricting advertisements is not the answer. We trust adults to choose what’s best for them. Sports betting should not be treated differently. Once a government begins restricting speech about one legal activity because some people may engage in it irresponsibly, it becomes difficult to see why the same logic should not apply elsewhere.

Today’s target may be sports betting. Tomorrow, it could be fast-food chains or countless other products that critics argue Americans consume too much of. Most Americans have no objections to cracking down on illegal gaming, setting age restrictions, or supporting those struggling with gambling addiction. What many object to is the notion that adults should lose access to product information because politicians do not trust them to make their own decisions.

As someone who likely never will place a sports bet, I have no interest in whether DraftKings, FanDuel, or any other gaming app gains another customer. That said, I do have an interest in preserving a simple principle: adults should be free to receive information and make their own choices. A free society all but guarantees people will not universally make wise decisions. Instead, it trusts them to make their own.

If sports betting is legal, its advertising should be too.

***

Jacob Lane is a Republican Strategist. He is a contributor for Young Voices whose writings have appeared in The Hill, the Chicago Tribune, and the Wall Street Journal.

Menu

Gambling Ad Restrictions Are Really Just Nanny State Information Control