South Carolina subcommittee hears industry and moral objections to bill to legalize mobile sports wagering

A South Carolina Senate subcommittee on S 44 heard competing testimony Tuesday on whether to legalize and regulate online sports wagering, with industry witnesses urging a licensed market to move play away from offshore operators and advocates of caution warning of addiction and other social harms. The panel carried the bill over for further consideration.

The bill, summarized to the committee by staff, would create the South Carolina Sports Wagering Act by adding a chapter to Title 39 of the South Carolina Code of Laws and would establish a South Carolina Sports Wagering Commission to license operators, set technical and integrity standards, and oversee taxation and enforcement. Rebecca (staff) told the subcommittee the proposal would impose a 12.5% privilege tax on adjusted gross sports wagering receipts and direct revenue to the state general fund with allocations for local governments and administrative costs.

Why it matters: Lawmakers face a choice between regulating activity that industry witnesses say already reaches into the state and guarding against potential increases in problem gambling and other harms. Supporters argued licensing brings oversight, consumer protections and tax revenue; opponents said ubiquitous, phone-based wagering would expand harms and cultural costs that are not fully offset by modest revenue projections.

Industry witnesses described customer-tracking data and argued for regulation. Trevor Hayes of Caesars Entertainment said "sports betting is here. It's happening in South Carolina right now," citing GeoComply geolocation data he described as almost 11,970,000 attempts last year that were denied because users were in South Carolina trying to access licensed apps. Hayes estimated a "good conservative" tax revenue of "$50 to $60 million a year," and described operator safeguards such as know-your-customer checks, cash-reserve requirements in the draft bill, voluntary betting limits, and monitoring systems that flag abrupt changes in betting behavior.

Opponents pressed enforcement and social-risk questions. Tony Bean, a pastor and policy consultant, urged lawmakers to "enforce the laws we have and to go after the black market," and described individual accounts of gambling addiction and family harms. Steve Bennett of the Palmetto Family Alliance cautioned that online wagering "places ignition in every pocket," cited research identifying men 18–29 as especially vulnerable, and pointed to a Department of Revenue fiscal analysis that staff said projects first-year revenue in the $11–31 million range.

Lawmakers pressed industry witnesses on enforcement against offshore operators, limits on losses and algorithmic design. FanDuel representative Lou Trombetta said GeoComply only works with licensed operators and does not block unlicensed offshore sites; he argued licensing and a regulator would offer consumer protections that the black market lacks and allow audits and enforcement. Trombetta and other witnesses acknowledged a legal and regulatory dispute over so-called "prediction markets" offered by some firms under Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversight; FanDuel testified that some prediction-market products are operating and that multiple lawsuits are pending in state courts.

Amendment and procedural action: The subcommittee considered an amendment to designate the PGA Tour and NASCAR as designated operators under section 8 of the bill. A motion to adopt the amendment was moved by the senator who introduced the proposal and seconded by Chairman Davis; after a hand vote and the addition of a proxy from Senator Bridal Matthews the amendment was recorded as adopted by a 3–2 margin. Chairman Davis said the committee would carry S 44 over for further consideration at a later date.

What lawmakers asked staff to clarify: senators sought independent verification of the GeoComply figures (witnesses offered handouts and said updated data was available), asked for a clearer fiscal estimate and the practical limits of state authority over prediction markets regulated by federal agencies, and pressed staff on whether statutory limits on losses or mandatory caps could be implemented.

The hearing concluded without a final vote on the bill; Chairman Davis said the committee would continue the conversation when a fuller quorum was available. The subcommittee did not set a new date at the close of the session.