There are not a lot of elected politicians in America who understand gambling from a gambler’s perspective. New York Assemblymember Alex Bores certainly seems to be one of them, and the funny thing is, he doesn’t even bet.
“I just listen to my constituents,” Bores, who represents Manhattan’s 73rd Assembly District, told InGame. And he just might become a thorn in the side of the sports betting industry with three bills that would fundamentally change how sportsbooks operate in the Empire State.
The centerpiece is the Fair Play Act, which takes direct aim at one of the industry’s most criticized practices: limiting or banning players who consistently win.
“The industry has sold one version to the public and to legislators and put forward a very different version to the people who are actually gambling,” said Bores. “And it’s time that we reconcile those two different versions.”
The Fair Play Act came about after constituents reached out to Bores with tales of being cut off by sportsbooks. Not for cheating. Not for suspicious activity. For winning.
“It’s a basic check on the promises that the industry is making, where they’re saying you can win big if you partake, and everyone knows there’s risk, but bettors think that it’s an equal-sided risk, or at least that they have a fair chance,” said Bores. “And the reality is the second you show any bit of skill, any bit of actually winning, you are immediately cut off.”
The bill would prohibit sportsbooks from limiting bet sizes or banning players simply because they’re profitable. The only exceptions would be suspicious wagering activity, as defined in law, or clear indications of problem gambling.
Bores also makes the case that limiting winners doesn’t just hurt sharp bettors.
“If you take out the sharps, if you take out the people that can spot the gaps in the odds, you can offer much worse odds on popular bets without there being an obvious gap that people would spot,” said Bores. “And so the people that are playing for fun end up losing money much more quickly.”
When operators are required to limit or ban a player, the bill mandates transparency: written notice within 24 hours explaining exactly why the restriction was imposed, how long it will last, and, if it’s tied to problem gambling concerns, providing a gambling helpline number.
Meanwhile, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission is expected to vote Thursday on regulations tied to player limiting.
The issue has been under active study since spring 2024, after sportsbook operators declined to participate in an initial public roundtable on the subject. Data presented by the commission showed that approximately 0.64% of sportsbook accounts were limited, and analysis tied limiting behavior to bettor performance, with consistent winners far more likely to see restrictions, while consistent losers were more likely to have limits raised or maintained.
Two more bills
Bores’ second proposal, the Choice in Responsible Gaming Act, flips the script on betting limits. Currently, sportsbook apps offer opt-in deposit and wagering limits that relatively few players use. Bores’ bill would make those limits opt-out instead.
“All of the apps already have opt-in betting limits, so all they need to do is flip it to opt out,” said Bores. “Which is a remarkably simple thing to do in code.” (And Bores should know, as he has a master’s degree in computer science, a credential he says makes him the first Democrat elected in New York at any level with a CS degree.)
Studies cited by Bores suggest that switching limits from opt-in to opt-out increases usage dramatically — by as much as 900%.
“It really does change the behavior of users in a way that protects them and makes sure they stay within their means,” he said.
Players would retain complete freedom to adjust or remove limits. They’d just have to make an active choice to do so.
The third bill, the Regulating Addictive Notifications Act, would ban sportsbooks from sending push notifications or text messages that solicit bets or deposits.
“It’s known that all of the sportsbooks are using your data from your interactions in the app and from across the internet to personalize and hyper-target when they send you push notifications for when you are most likely to send more money in,” said Bores.
The bill would still allow notifications about bet results or general information, just not the carefully timed prompts designed to catch users at their most vulnerable.
“They shouldn’t be using your personality traits and your observed behavior to know that exactly 2:36 p.m. on a Thursday is when you’re likely to put in stuff for Thursday Night Football,” he said.
Chances of passing?
Bores is realistic about the industry’s influence.
“They spend a lot of money,” he said, “and they’re very good at mobilizing users,” often via in-app messages claiming lawmakers are trying to take away bettor rights.
But he believes the Fair Play Act, in particular, is difficult to spin as anti-player.
“It is just protecting the rights of people who play,” he said.
The push-notification bill has cleared committee unanimously and is on the Assembly floor. All three measures are in their second legislative year, and Bores — who is running for Congress in a June Democratic primary, with the general election set for November — said he expects to serve out his Assembly term and have the full session to advance the bills.
