New York is proposing stronger rules for online sportsbooks, but the central question is how much gambling harm can accumulate before a company has to intervene. The state’s gaming commission unanimously advanced two proposals on October 9: mandatory triggers for identifying and checking in with at-risk customers, and a prohibition on using artificial intelligence to customize bonuses or wagers. Neither rule is yet final; a 60-day public comment period comes next.
Jake Pearson reports for ProPublica that the risk-identification proposal would effectively adopt guidelines already used in New Jersey. DraftKings says it follows those thresholds, which include depositing more than $10,000 in a day or wagering more than $1 million over 90 days. The proposed rules also cover changes in behavior, including a weekly increase in app time of at least 50% compared with the immediately preceding two-week period.
The problem is not simply whether a sportsbook has a monitoring system. It is what that system treats as serious enough to act on. In ProPublica’s earlier test, Pearson deliberately exhibited signs of compulsive gambling with advice from addiction specialists, recovering addicts and professional bettors. He deposited $21,600 in less than eight weeks without qualifying for a manual account review. DraftKings sent responsible-gaming notices, but also made him a VIP. Losses well below the largest trigger amounts can still destabilize a household’s finances.
The AI proposal addresses a different part of the same incentive structure: using customer data to tailor inducements to keep betting. Its formal introduction follows reporting by The New York Times on promotions aimed at losing bettors and by ProPublica on promotional messages outweighing safety notices. DraftKings disputes that it improperly targets customers or uses addiction risk to offer inducements. Its chief responsible gaming officer told Pearson that the system operated as intended during his investigation.
Commission chair Brian O’Dwyer acknowledged the proposals’ limitations and urged New York’s nine licensed mobile sportsbooks to share data so customers cannot evade intervention by moving between apps. That matters because separate account-level checks can miss the cumulative cost borne by one person. Gambling reform advocate Brianne Doura-Schawohl argues that adopting the existing thresholds gives the appearance of reform without sufficient change; the industry’s trade association calls the proposals a strong framework while seeking changes to how triggers and interventions operate.
The proposals would make some protections mandatory and limit one form of automated marketing. They would not settle whether the thresholds identify harm early enough, or whether notices and check-ins materially interrupt it. Those are the outcomes to watch as New York moves from companies’ assurances toward enforceable requirements.