Connecticut’s Proposed Legislation on Sports Betting and Online Poker
by
- Published:
- Last Updated:
In Connecticut, a new legislative proposal presented on Thursday, March 6, is currently awaiting a public hearing. This proposed bill examines the possibility of setting a cap on sports wagers. Additionally, it delves into the broader subject of gambling, with a specific emphasis on online poker.
Setting Limits for Online Betting in Connecticut: Details Still Undefined
The proposed legislation, known as ‘An Act Concerning Sports Wagering and Multijurisdictional Internet Gaming’, has been submitted to the Senate’s Joint Committee on General Law. This bill, identified as SB01464, seeks to define a maximum limit for online sports betting. Furthermore, it aspires to integrate Connecticut into the expanding iGaming network across the nation.
This legislative effort also aims to explore Connecticut’s potential involvement in the ‘Multi-State Internet Gaming Agreement’ (MSIGA). By joining this agreement, Connecticut poker enthusiasts could participate in larger online player pools and engage in internet tournaments that span multiple states.
Currently, six states are part of the MSIGA, sharing their online poker player pools. These states include:
- Delaware
- New Jersey
- Pennsylvania
- Nevada
- Michigan
- West Virginia
However, the proposed bill does not specify the details of the maximum sports wager, leaving the exact figures undetermined.
In Connecticut, sports betting is regulated and available through three dedicated sportsbooks: DraftKings, FanDuel, and Fanatics. These companies have collectively contributed to a total sports betting handle exceeding $6 billion since the official launch of the activity in 2021.
Connecticut’s Regulatory Focus
Connecticut has consistently taken a proactive and firm approach to gambling regulation. While the state permits iGaming, it has also taken action against certain companies. For instance, Connecticut requested companies providing sweepstakes social casinos, like VGW, to cease their operations within the state.
Similarly, in November, the state took action against Kalshi and issued a reminder to residents to refrain from engaging in political prediction markets.
