Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fantasy Sports Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill seeks to clarify fantasy competitions as distinct from sports wagering and add consumer protections
Summary
House Bill 484 would update the statutory definition of fantasy competitions to cover modern single-player and operator-format contests, add a centralized self-exclusion program and require fantasy operators to adopt problem-gaming mitigations; supporters said clarity would grow the market while opponents warned against regulatory gaps.
Delegate (presenting) told the committee that House Bill 484 would modernize Maryland’s fantasy-competition statute to expressly include single-player formats and to create a centralized self-exclusion list and player-protection requirements.
Supporters included fantasy-platform operators such as PrizePicks and their counsel. Shane Som of PrizePicks said the company operates nationally and that unclear regulatory language has prevented some operators from offering single-player products in Maryland despite similar products being permitted in neighboring jurisdictions. “HB 44 can clarify ambiguity in the statute by 1, clarifying that DFS is distinct from sports betting, 2, supporting consumer choice by allowing single player DFS… and 3, expanding consumer protections,” Som testified.
NetChoice, representing several online platforms, and policy researchers argued the bill would protect innovation and bring fantasy competitions into a statutory framework with consumer safeguards. Opposing testimony came from the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Agency, which argued that prior agency rules were developed to preserve the distinction between fantasy competitions and sports wagering and warned that statutory changes could create a “gray area” that undermines enforcement. The agency urged an unfavorable report.
Witnesses and committee members discussed whether single-player competitions should be treated as contests against an operator, how registration fees and licensing should be structured, and how to ensure consumer protections including a statewide self-exclusion list rather than requiring self-exclusion on each platform.
The committee took testimony from industry, policy researchers and problem-gambling experts; agency staff recommended caution. No formal committee vote was recorded at the hearing.
