Colorado Legislators Voted To Strengthen Responsible Gambling Rules; Some Warn of Unintended Consequences

A bipartisan bill to strengthen Colorado’s sports betting and responsible gambling protections passed the state legislature on May 13, as the Senate voted 20-15 to repass SB 26-131 with House-added amendments. The consumer protection bill now awaits the governor’s pen.  

Should Gov. Jared Polis sign SB 26-131 into law, Colorado would become first state to ban sportsbook operators from sending push notifications and text messages to solicit bets or deposits and limit the number of daily deposits a player can make. How the policy changes play out remains to be seen, but some have suggested measures like the push notification ban could have unintended consequences, shifting players to unregulated books.

The law would also require operators to share anonymized data with regulators, restrict youth-adjacent advertising, and ban credit card deposits.

Sen. Matt Ball, one of the legislation’s four primary sponsors, told Gambling Insider in an email that he and his cosponsors expect Senate Bill 131 to become law. 

He also countered industry claims that the push notification ban or other aspects of the bill could drive players to offshore or black-market sportsbooks or prediction markets.

I haven’t heard that concern about push notifications from responsible gaming advocates—and I worked closely with many of them on the bill—but I have heard that argument from the industry. There’s no evidence to suggest that people are going to flee the legal market because they’re no longer getting push notifications.” 

Rather, SB 26-131 is an “important step in addressing the real public health impacts associated with the rapid expansion of online sports betting,” Ball added. 

The bill is trying to address the reality that sportsbooks today operate in an environment of constant, personalized digital engagement that can make it extremely difficult for people with gambling problems to stop betting.”

Gambling Lobby Pans Tighter Restrictions, Warns of Unintended Risks 

The Sports Betting Alliance, an industry group comprising FanDuel, DraftKings, BetMGM, Fanatics, and bet365, has claimed the new restrictions go too far. 

The changes, the organization implies, will make regulated sportsbooks less competitive. 

From the SBA’s website:

Millions of Colorado sports fans bet responsibly on the sports they love. These new restrictions would make the experience worse for adults who play by the rules.”

If those adults choose to take their wagers to unregulated markets, the SBA cautions, states could lose millions in tax revenue annually. Meanwhile, the lack of consumer protections on offshore sites, prediction markets and black-market books puts players at greater risk, it says. 

“Unregulated sports betting operators flourish in states where sports betting is not yet legal,” the SBA states. “These online platforms dodge U.S. laws that ensure consumer protection, age verification, and responsible gaming protections, putting customers at risk and depriving states of millions in tax revenue every year.”

The bill that just passed looks substantially different than the bill SB 26-131’s sponsors introduced.

Earlier versions banned prop bets, limited broadcast advertising windows, and restricted sportsbooks’ ability to limit winning bettors. Lawmakers removed those measures through amendments during the bill’s legislative journey.

What passed on Wednesday has drawn backing from advocacy groups, including the Problem Gambling Coalition of Colorado (PGCC), the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, and Healthier Colorado.

During an earlier hearing, another of the bill’s cosponsors, Rep. Steven Woodrow, said lawmakers did not intend for SB 26-131 to irritate the industry:

Through stakeholder discussion and conversations with my co-prime sponsor, we want to be clear that we’re not trying to be antagonistic to the industry. We understand that voters approved sports betting.”

PGCC Backs Legislation To Ban or Limit Gambling Notifications

PGCC executive director Jamie Glick told Gambling Insider that the organization supports the legislation.

In an email, Glick wrote:

Overall, the Problem Gambling Coalition of Colorado (PGCC) supports regulations that strengthen consumer protections and reduce exposure to gambling-related marketing that may contribute to harm. Our primary concern is ensuring that individuals, particularly those who may be vulnerable to developing gambling problems, are not subjected to marketing practices that can trigger impulsive behavior.”

Addressing potential unintended consequences, Glick said there is “always the possibility that some consumers may seek out unregulated or offshore operators …

“However, we believe that strong consumer protections are essential to maintaining a sustainable and trustworthy regulated market,” he explained. 

The goal of regulation should not be to maximize participation, but to ensure that gambling occurs in an environment that prioritizes transparency, informed decision-making, and safeguards for those at risk.”

From PGCC’s perspective, Glick relayed, the larger concern is the “cumulative impact of aggressive and highly personalized marketing.” 

Push notifications, VIP programs, bonus offers, and other inducements can be especially problematic for individuals experiencing gambling-related harm. Requiring consumers to actively opt in to these communications is a meaningful step toward reducing harm while still preserving choice.

Ultimately, thoughtful regulations help strike the right balance between consumer freedom, industry viability, and public health.”

Notably, a bill banning gambling-related push notifications is slowly making its way through New York’s legislature. In 2025, a similar bill in Minnesota failed to gain popular support.

Responsible Gambling Best Practices Not Black and White

Requiring players to opt in to receive inducements could reduce harm while maintaining choice, Glick stated. However, rather than requiring players to opt in, SB 26-131 imposes a blanket ban on all operator-initiated push notifications and text messages.

The total ban is primarily where some industry lobbyists and responsible gambling advocates think the bill went too far.

On a call with Gambling Insider, Josh Ercole, executive director of Pennsylvania’s Council on Compulsive Gambling (CCGP), said RG issues are rarely cut and dry:

The more we can limit the chance for somebody to put themselves, or be placed in a position where harm is being done, that’s good, right? Logically, we can all agree on that. But realistically, there’s a lot to consider… The more restrictive you make things, the higher the likelihood is that somebody is just going to turn to an unregulated market.”

“Even though the best intentions are there,” he added, “sometimes the outcome isn’t going to match the intention.” 

Regarding push notifications, Glick said the PGCC believes an opt-in model would be a “sensible and balanced approach” that preserves choice while requiring affirmative consent.

However, whether policymakers ultimately choose an outright ban, as in Colorado, or an opt-in approach, the key consideration is giving consumers greater control, he believes.

As with any regulation, there is always the potential for unintended consequences. At the same time, consumer protection measures are an important part of maintaining a balanced and responsible legal market. 

Our focus is on ensuring that public health considerations remain part of the conversation.”