US gambling addiction is ‘out of control’ as betting markets boom, policy expert warns | Gambling

The Shift Toward a Public Health Model for Gambling

For years, gambling addiction was often viewed as a failure of individual willpower. However, a significant shift is occurring. Experts and advocates are now arguing that the industry requires a comprehensive public health response, similar to the strategies used to combat tobacco and alcohol consumption.

The core of this argument, championed by leaders at the Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI), is that the “product is what’s dangerous,” not the people using it. By focusing on the design, distribution, and accessibility of gambling products, policymakers aim to curb a crisis that some describe as spiraling “out of control.”

Treating Addiction as a Systemic Issue

The trend is moving toward regulating the “speed” and “type” of access to gambling. Rather than focusing solely on treatment after addiction has occurred, the goal is to implement stricter guardrails on the products themselves to prevent harm before it starts.

This approach is gaining traction globally, with insights being drawn from international experts, including clinical psychologists from the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) and public health scholars from Australia’s Monash University.

The Rise of Prediction Markets and “Event Derivatives”

While sports betting is a well-known entity, a latest trend is emerging: prediction markets. These platforms allow users to wager on a vast array of outcomes, from award winners and war developments to the specific clothing an artist wears on stage.

These platforms often categorize their offerings as “event derivatives” rather than traditional gambling. This distinction is critical because it changes who regulates them.

The Regulatory Gap: CFTC vs. State Gaming Boards

Unlike traditional sportsbooks or casinos, which are overseen by state gaming authorities, prediction markets are often placed under the federal commodities regulation of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). This regulatory nuance has several real-world implications:

• Wider Accessibility: These platforms are often accessible across the entire country.
• Lower Age Requirements: Users as young as 18 can participate, whereas many states require a minimum age of 21 for sports betting.
• Normalization: Critics argue that by broadening the scope of what can be gambled on in a “micro way,” these platforms contribute to the normalization of gambling.

Technological Warfare: AI and the Safe Bet Act

As gambling platforms become more sophisticated, the employ of artificial intelligence (AI) to track player behavior and create personalized bets has become a major point of contention. Public health advocates warn that these tools can be used to maximize engagement and increase the risk of addiction.

In response, legislative efforts like the Safe Bet Act have been introduced in Congress. This proposed legislation seeks to establish “minimum federal standards” for legal sports betting, focusing on several key areas:

• Marketing Limits: Imposing restrictions on how gambling is advertised to the public.
• Affordability Checks: Introducing mechanisms to ensure users are not wagering beyond their means.
• AI Restrictions: Limiting the use of AI apps designed to track players and optimize betting frequency.

The Path Toward Federal Oversight

Since the 2018 Supreme Court ruling lifted the federal sports betting ban, the industry has expanded rapidly, with sports betting now legalized in 39 states and Washington DC. However, the patchwork of state-by-state regulation has left many feeling that the system is insufficient.

Public sentiment appears to be shifting toward a desire for centralized control. An Ipsos poll found that approximately 40% of Americans support the federal government taking more action to regulate sports betting.

The future likely holds a clash between those who view prediction markets as financial trading platforms and those who see them as gambling under a different name. The outcome of this debate will determine whether the U.S. Adopts a unified federal standard or continues with a fragmented regulatory landscape.

Frequently Asked Questions