Why the SAFE Bet Act Could Increase the Illegal Gambling Market
With March Madness underway and billions of dollars being legally wagered across the country, Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Rep. Paul Tonko chose this moment to reintroduce the SAFE Bet Act, a proposal that remains in a very early stage of the legislative process, having only been referred to committee so far.
The stated goal is to protect consumers from addiction and financial harm, but the bill could end up pushing those bets underground instead.
The SAFE Bet Act seeks to establish federal standards for legal sports betting, including strict limits on advertising during live sporting events, as well as new requirements tied to its classification as a public health issue. This framing is concerning in itself, as it recasts what is, in most cases, an individual choice made by adults as a potentially clinical problem requiring federal correction.
Supporters of the bill, including Richard Daynard, have drawn parallels between the rapid expansion of sports betting and the historical growth of the tobacco industry, defending stricter federal oversight. Critics, including the American Gaming Association, counter that federal intervention undermines the state-by-state regulatory model that has successfully governed the industry since 2018.
Although the SAFE Bet Act contains several restrictive measures, its most immediate and problematic impact comes from the severe restrictions on advertising. By banning advertising by legal operators during live sporting events and sharply limiting promotions, the proposal drastically reduces the visibility of the regulated market. Rather than decreasing the volume of betting, this restriction weakens legal operators by removing the clearest signals consumers have about which platforms are regulated and safe.
Sports betting currently represents a significant and rapidly growing market in the United States, with approximately $167 billion wagered in 2025, an 11% increase from the previous year. Operator revenues also reached $16.9 billion, growing nearly 23%. This is not a marginal activity but a consolidated and expanding sector that has operated under a legal framework since the repeal of PASPA in 2018, and whose sustainability depends largely on the visibility of legal operators.
Demand already exists. Restricting legal advertising risks changing where consumers place their bets. Illegal operators, which are not subject to any advertising restrictions or consumer protection requirements, remain available and competitive, creating far greater risks of unchecked addiction, financial fraud, data theft, and even links to organized crime, as warned by the FBI in its December 2025 public service announcement.
By classifying sports betting as a public health issue and imposing rigid federal standards, the proposal also significantly limits the autonomy of the states, which have been primarily responsible for the legalization and regulation of this sector since 2018. This shift ignores local differences and weakens a decentralized model that has allowed rules to be tailored to the realities of each state. What is, in most cases, an individual choice made by adults does not, by itself, constitute a clinical problem that justifies federal correction. Yet that is precisely the premise underlying the bill’s approach.
The broad ban on advertising also raises serious constitutional concerns. The promotion of legal services constitutes commercial speech protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, subject to the Central Hudson test, which requires that restrictions be narrowly tailored and not more extensive than necessary. A blanket ban on advertising for a legal activity for adults is difficult to justify, especially when less intrusive alternatives already exist, such as bans on misleading advertising and targeting minors.
If the goal is truly to protect consumers, the solution does not lie in reducing the visibility of the legal market through federal prohibitions, but rather in avoiding excessive intervention. This issue should remain a matter of individual responsibility, regulated by the states and the industry itself. The sector has already demonstrated its ability to self-regulate, as evidenced by the Responsible Marketing Code for Sports Wagering of the American Gaming Association – which imposes strict limits on audience targeting, requires responsible gaming messaging, and prohibits misleading terms such as “risk-free” – and the Responsible Gaming Code of Conduct. These frameworks show that it is possible to protect consumers without resorting to excessive federal centralization.
Those who want to bet will bet. Limiting legal advertising does not eliminate the behavior. It simply pushes it into less safe environments.