Senate committee hears testimony on bill to authorize online horse betting in New Hampshire

Senate Bill 60, which would expressly authorize and regulate advanced deposit wagering (remote online betting on horse races) in New Hampshire, received testimony during the Senate Ways and Means Committee public hearing.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Tim Lang, R-District 2, told the panel the measure is intended to clarify a “gray area” created by federal and state law and to extend New Hampshire’s existing pari‑mutuel framework to online wagering. “We have a prohibition on gaming unless it’s explicitly allowed,” Lang said, and the bill would “explicitly allow you to be able to bet on the Kentucky Derby ... online.”

Peter Bridal, senior policy adviser representing Churchill Downs, said his company voluntarily stopped offering its TwinSpires advanced deposit wagering product in New Hampshire in 2022 while other operators continued to accept bets. Bridal said the bill would level the playing field, allow state regulation and consumer protections, and keep the market fair for operators who had withdrawn. “This bill does what? It helps to level the playing field, makes it so that everybody compete fairly. It also provides consumer protection, which is nonexistent now,” Bridal said.

Charlie McIntyre, director of the New Hampshire Lottery, told the committee the Lottery and the attorney general view online horse wagering as a regulatory issue similar to how fantasy sports were treated: operating in a gray area until the Legislature provides rules. McIntyre said the commission and the attorney general requested legislation to regulate the activity, including operator reporting and consumer protections.

Witnesses discussed the interplay between the federal Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978 — which permits interstate wagering arrangements under certain consents — and New Hampshire law that generally prohibits unlisted gambling. Bridal and Sen. Lang told committee members the Interstate Horse Racing Act allows states to regulate remote wagering but that the federal statute has been interpreted to permit certain interstate structures used by advanced deposit wagering operators.

Testimony also addressed operational details: McIntyre said operators would be expected to maintain transaction records and to work with the Lottery on complaint resolution; he described likely rulemaking for auditing, suspicious-activity reporting and customer safeguards. McIntyre said three operators were currently accepting wagers in the state (FanDuel, Entain/TVG and ExpressBet), while others (including DraftKings and Churchill Downs/TwinSpires) had paused operations pending legislative clarity.

On taxation and fiscal impact, there was inconsistent testimony in the hearing. Sen. Lang referred to a tax rate cited in the bill text during his presentation and also described the bill as making the online tax rate the same as in-person pari‑mutuel betting. At the hearing, Lang said in-person pari‑mutuel betting at grandfathered locations is taxed at 1.25 percent, and he said the bill’s intent is to align digital wagering with in-person rates. At an earlier point in his remarks he read a different figure aloud from the bill text. The discrepancy prompted questions from committee members; neither the bill text nor a unified fiscal estimate resolving that difference was presented to the committee at the hearing.

Committee members asked about geofencing and interstate acceptance of bets. Sen. Lang and Bridal said advanced deposit wagering platforms typically accept bets through hubs licensed in other states (for example, Oregon) and that federal law has been interpreted in court decisions to focus on where bets are accepted rather than where bettors are located. The Lottery director said the commission would use licensing and rulemaking to require operators to ensure wagering occurs under state rules, including geofencing where appropriate.

No vote was taken; the hearing was advisory. Committee members asked Lottery staff for additional information on operators, current activity in the state, and details the commission would require in rulemaking.

Why it matters: The bill would bring online horse betting under explicit state regulation, creating a statutory framework for licensing, auditing and consumer protections and channeling new gaming revenue to state accounts. Testimony showed both industry interest in a clear regulatory regime and lingering questions about tax treatment and the interaction of federal and state law.