Senate committee advances bill to ban micro‑betting amid addiction and integrity concerns

A State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation committee advanced S2160 on a motion to release, moving the bill closer to debate by the full Senate. Sponsors and public‑health experts told the committee micro‑betting — wagering on the next pitch, play or possession — fuels compulsive gambling and can magnify financial harm.

Dr. Harry Levent, director of gambling policy at the Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University School of Law, described his own criminal convictions tied to gambling and said micro‑betting is “fundamentally different, inherently dangerous” because technology and league data partnerships make bets available every few seconds. “This is an addictive product,” Levent said, urging the committee to “build the necessary guardrails so that people don’t fall into that river in the first place.”

Brian Beal, a 28‑year‑old in recovery who testified that in‑game bets accelerated his losses, told senators the apps send targeted bonus offers and live‑bet interfaces that kept him gambling “every second of every day.” A parent, Christina Isom, said her son’s life had been disrupted by persistent micro‑betting and asked lawmakers to act.

Industry witnesses disputed the proposal’s likely effect. Zach Khan, testifying for the Sports Betting Alliance on behalf of major operators, said licensed platforms provide deposit and wager limits, self‑exclusion, account monitoring and other consumer protections that would be lost if bettors migrated to unregulated offshore or prediction‑market platforms. “S2160 doesn’t protect bettors. It routes them to operators least equipped to do so,” Khan said.

Tim Murphy, senior director at DraftKings, described internal responsible‑gaming teams and identity‑verification systems that the company says help identify problem behavior, and warned that leaving customers outside the regulated market would remove those safeguards.

Members questioned witnesses on underage access, the effectiveness of self‑exclusion, and whether a state ban would disadvantage Atlantic City’s brick‑and‑mortar industry versus neighboring states. Witnesses acknowledged cross‑border and offshore options exist but offered differing views on whether a ban would reduce harm or simply shift bettors to less regulated platforms.

Senator Turner moved the bill out of committee; the motion was seconded and the committee released S2160 for further consideration. Transcript roll‑call exchanges are recorded in the committee record.

The bill’s sponsors said they are not advocating to end sports wagering entirely but seek to prohibit micro‑bets that are designed to be placed repeatedly during live play. Supporters urged state action to protect young people and people with gambling disorders; industry representatives pledged continued engagement with regulators on safeguards.