.svg)
The co-sponsor of a bill that would impose a maximum bet limit in Connecticut has said that was not its intent and that the measure will seek to make operators explain why and how consumers are being limited.
“The maximum wager [requirement] was not exactly the intent of what I had proposed,” Republican Representative Tony Scott told the Joint Committee on General Law during a public hearing on Wednesday (March 12) on Senate Bill 1464.
Scott said he expects to amend his bill before it is voted on by the committee.
“This concept aims to clearly clarify to consumers why and how they are being limited,” Scott said. “Some gamblers that have a success rate higher than the average and maybe make money gambling sometimes get limited in terms of sports or certain wagers.”
Scott said what he is asking for is to force licensed operators in Connecticut “to communicate clearly why the consumer is being limited and exactly how they are being limited.”
“In a perfect world, limiting would be outlawed,” he added. “It’s like going to a blackjack table where the limit is $100, and you sit down, and you can only bet $10 for the first hour that you are playing. It’s not fair and the consumer is not protected.”
As introduced, SB 1464 would require the commissioner of the state’s Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) to adopt new online sports-betting regulations, establishing a maximum amount of money that consumers can place on a single wager online.
There is no number tied to the maximum wager under the original draft of the bill, giving the DCP unlimited scope to limit the maximum bet. The legislation was introduced by the committee, with Scott as a co-sponsor.
Testifying before the committee on Wednesday, David Prestwood, general counsel with DraftKings, and Michael Ventre, senior manager of state government relations with FanDuel, both said they understood that Scott’s original intent is different from how the bill was drafted.
“As drafted, we would request that the committee not adopt this provision,” Prestwood said. “The state’s current regulation provides customers with the opportunity to access information on maximum wagers in an operator's house rules. These can be accessed by any customer at any time.”
In other provisions, SB 1464 also seeks to allow Connecticut to join the Multi-State Internet Gaming Agreement (MSIGA) for online poker. MSIGA member states can host online poker games that include players from other member states to increase participation and the pot being offered to winning players.
Currently, Delaware, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, and West Virginia are MSIGA members.
The three authorized operators of online betting in Connecticut — Fanatics Betting & Gaming, DraftKings and FanDuel — all expressed support for the provision authorizing Connecticut to join the poker agreement, with Brandt Iden, vice president of government affairs with Fanatics, saying joining the MSIGA “would benefit both consumers and the state.”
Currently, Fanatics serves as the Connecticut Lottery Corp.'s exclusive sports-betting partner for retail and mobile wagering, while FanDuel has partnered with the Mohegan Sun and DraftKings has a partnership with the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation.
Bills Banning Bonuses, Promotional Credits
During Wednesday's hearing, FanDuel's Ventre also cautioned lawmakers against banning all promotional credits as outlined in House Bill 5269 or prohibiting any “bonus, credit and other inducement to participate in gaming” as proposed in House Bill 5272.
The FanDuel executive said the proposal “poses a threat to how the entire industry works.”
“Taking away promos would inherently damage this experience leading to customers seeking promos from illegal operators who don’t offer the same protections and do not provide the state with meaningful tax revenue,” Ventre said.
Prestwood also expressed DraftKings' opposition to both bills, advising the committee not to adopt the legislation.
He argued that prohibiting licensed operators from offering or advertising promotions would hinder the state’s legal and regulated sports-betting industry from competing with illegal offshore operators.
Representative David Rutigliano, a Republican and ranking House member on the committee, told Ventre that his colleagues are just trying to establish some reasonable limits to sports-betting marketing.
He expressed concern that some of the current marketing or promotional practices of operators may be “deemed as predatory, deceptive marketing.”
“To sit there and tell someone they get $200 if they bet $5 and then the fine, tiny little print says you guys [must] bet an aggregate of $10,000 over seven days is deceptive in my opinion and some other people's opinion,” Rutigliano said. “So if your industry could clean that up a little bit, I think some of us would back off that.”
HB 5269 also contains additional restrictions that would allow operators to accept an account deposit from a debit or credit card only when the deposit has been authorized by each owner of the account.
Prestwood of DraftKings warned that “in practice, this would prohibit anyone from funding an account with a debit or credit card.”
A similar provision was included in an earlier bill in 2023, and Prestwood reminded lawmakers that payment companies testified at the time that there was “no feasible way to implement this proposed limitation.”
“We don’t believe anything has changed,” Prestwood added. “Due to the mechanics of funding transactions, to the best of our understanding there is no way for an acquirer involved in a financial transaction to verify that there is only one account holder.”
