Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gambling Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears multiple proposals on sports wagering: funding for problem-gambling services, license openings and monitoring of ‘sharps’
Summary
Multiple bills addressing sports wagering’s fiscal and regulatory framework drew attention in the Ways and Means Committee on Feb. 13, as lawmakers debated new obligations for operators to fund problem-gambling services, reopen closed licensing windows and require monitoring to keep bettors on licensed platforms.
Delegate Nick Allen and other sponsors presented a cluster of bills tied to Maryland’s expansion of sports wagering and its fiscal and regulatory impacts.
House Bill 700 would require newly authorized forms of gambling — notably sports betting and fantasy sports — to contribute additional revenue to the state’s problem-gambling fund and commission a prevalence study of mobile gaming in Maryland. Delegate Nick Allen noted stakeholder letters of support and emphasized the bill would ask operators to “contribute their fair share” rather than tap the state general fund; he said the administration’s competing BRFAA (broad regulatory/fee) package could change operator economics and should be reconciled.
Delegate Jason Buckel and others pressed for reopening the process of license applications that the Sports Wagering Application Review Commission (SWARC) had effectively closed. Buckel’s HB 797 asks the commission to accept applications for types and numbers of licenses the legislature created but the commission has stopped accepting, arguing that prospective small and minority-owned applicants were being shut out.
Delegate Dalia Tarr’s matter (and testimony about monitoring ’sharps’ and touts) was represented by Delegate Ebersole and others supporting HB 922, which would require licensed operators to use monitoring services to track problematic or illegal affiliate funnels that steer bettors toward unlicensed offshore sites. Proponents said the change — often a single-word shift from “may” to “shall” in the governing statute — would help deter illegal offshore operators and protect consumers by forcing licensees to contract with monitoring firms (witnesses mentioned a firm called SharpRanks as an example). Members raised procurement and competition questions; proponents said the commission could require competitive bidding and vet vendors for capacity.
Committee members asked practical questions: how changes interact with the governor’s broader BRFAA package; whether sports-wagering operators could accept slightly different percentages under competing bills; whether requiring a single vendor created sole-source problems; and whether closer industry engagement had occurred. Witnesses for the monitoring bill said marketplace competition exists and amendments could require multiple vendors. Buckel also raised concerns about the SWARC’s de facto moratorium on new applicants and urged legislative clarification.
No votes were taken. Testimony included representatives of the casino and gaming sector, local delegations (Charles County appearing later on related gaming matters), and industry observers; committee members focused on reconciling overlapping revenue and licensing proposals.
