Sports Betting State Regulation: A Comparison of Approaches

Medically reviewed by licensed healthcare professionals · Legally reviewed by mass tort litigation specialists · Last updated: March 2026

The 2018 Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. NCAA opened the door to state-level sports betting legalization. Since then, over 35 states have legalized sports betting — but the rules governing advertising, responsible gambling, and consumer protection are wildly inconsistent.

Key Areas of Regulatory Difference

Advertising restrictions:

• High-restriction states (e.g., Massachusetts, Ohio): Have implemented restrictions on advertising during live sports broadcasts and prohibitions on using terms like "risk-free" in bonus offers.
• Low-restriction states (e.g., Colorado, Michigan): Have very few restrictions on advertising content or placement, leading to high ad volume and frequent use of bonus-centric messaging.

Responsible gambling funding:

• States with dedicated funding (e.g., New Jersey, Pennsylvania): Earmark a percentage of tax revenue from sports betting specifically for problem gambling treatment and prevention programs.
• States with no dedicated funding: Tax revenue goes to the general fund, with no specific allocation for problem gambling services — leaving those services underfunded relative to the scale of the newly legalized market.

Self-exclusion programs:

• States with centralized registries (e.g., Ohio, Tennessee): Maintain a single statewide self-exclusion list that all licensed operators must honor.
• States with platform-only exclusion: Rely on individual sportsbooks to manage their own self-exclusion lists, which does not prevent a self-excluded bettor from simply moving to another platform.

College sports betting rules:

• States with prop bet bans (e.g., Ohio, Maryland): Prohibit individual player proposition bets on college athletes to reduce integrity risks and protect student-athletes from harassment.
• States with no college restrictions: Allow the full range of betting on college sports, including individual player props.

The "Race to the Bottom" Concern

Consumer advocates have expressed concern about a "race to the bottom" in sports betting regulation, where states compete for market share by offering low tax rates and minimal regulatory burdens to attract operators. This dynamic can prioritize revenue generation over consumer protection — a pattern seen in other industries with state-by-state regulation.

Federal lawmakers have held hearings on sports betting regulation but have thus far declined to impose federal standards, leaving consumer protection entirely to the states.