BILL NUMBER: S9047
SPONSOR: FAHY
 
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the racing, pari-mutuel wagering and breeding law, in
relation to prohibiting mobile sports wagering operators and mobile
sports wagering platforms from limiting the size and frequency of depos-
its or wagers of authorized sports bettors on an individual basis or
banning authorized sports bettors on an individual basis
 
PURPOSE:
To make online sports betting platforms more fair, and to prevent the
wrongful limiting of certain players. Summary of provisions:
Section one: Provides the short title of the bill
Section two: Prohibits the bet limiting of players due to winning.
Section three: Mandates the operator communicate their reason for the
restriction.
Section four: Provides the effective date.
 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Mobile sports betting operators promote their platforms by suggesting
the idea that any player can win. In reality, these operators maintain
complete and unregulated control over who is allowed to win on their
platforms. Bet limiting - a practice defined by placing a cap on how
much an individual player is allowed to bet - is very commonplace on
these platforms, often simply because a player wins.
By imposing strict limits on winners, operators are pushing bettors back
to illegal and potentially dangerous bookies, which is completely
antithetical to the idea of legalized sports betting. The point of
legalization was to allow for safe, regulated, and revenue generating
channels of wagering. If bettors are being pushed away due to these
limits, the limits have to go.
Beau Wagner won $50,000 on a single bet on DraftKings, after which
DraftKings posted on X celebrating him. A few days later, he noticed
that his bet sizing was limited to $3.63. The previous director of
DraftKings admitted that "too many players get limited, and those that
get limited are limited too harshly."
It is important that operators have the power to limit players, both to
reduce cheating and to protect problem gamblers, but limiting practices
shouldn't extend further than that. Players should have a fair ability
to win bets that the platforms offer. No bettor wants to be limited
without cause, and every bettor wants a fair experience.
 
JUSTIFICATION:
This bill ensures that New York consumers are clearly informed when
purchasing digital goods-such as ebooks, music, or video games-that they
are receiving a limited license, not full ownership. Currently, sellers
can use terms like "buy" or "purchase" even when they retain the right
to revoke access. This common but misleading practice leaves consumers
confused and vulnerable when digital products they believed they owned
are suddenly removed or restricted.
The bill requires sellers who use ownership language to either obtain
clear acknowledgment from the buyer that the transaction is a license,
or provide a conspicuous notice before purchase explaining that access
is limited and subject to terms. Disclosures must be plainly stated and
separate from general terms and conditions. The bill exempts
subscriptions, free digital goods, and permanently downloadable content.
A similar law was recently adopted in California, setting a national
precedent for transparency in digital transactions. New York should
follow suit to protect its residents from deceptive advertising prac-
tices and ensure fair treatment in the digital marketplace.
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
None.
 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect on the one hundred eightieth day after it
shall have become a law.