Kentucky House Passes Bill That Would Require Online Sports Betting Operators To Take Bets Up To $1,000
Proposal would also raise minimum age, ban some props, regulate DFS, and tax prediction markets
InGame The Kentucky legislature is on its way to becoming the first to require online sports betting operators to accept wagers of up to $1,000 after the House passed HB 604 , 79-15, Thursday afternoon. Should the bill get through the Senate, Kentucky would be the first state to pass a law mandating that operators take bets up to a certain amount. Legislation around the country on the issue of bet sizes has largely centered on bet minimums and operator-imposed limitations on bettors, usually more sophisticated “sharps.
” HB 604 now moves to the Senate, which will have about a month to consider the proposal before the legislature is set to adjourn April 15. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission in December was the first regulator to take action around limiting bettors when it added a regulation to require that operators inform bettors if and why they are being limited, but did not set a floor or ceiling. Kentucky’s bill would also seek to tax gross revenue generated by prediction markets at a 14.
25% rate, the same as online sports betting platforms, and would ban horse tracks (through which wagering operators gain market access) and daily fantasy operators from operating a prediction market for one year, and after that, licensees would also be prohibited from “being involved with” or offering a prediction product anywhere else in the U. S. Sponsor opposes $1,000 requirement With regard to the requirement to take bets up to $1,000, Republican Rep.
Nick Wilson brought House Floor Amendment 2 to his peers Thursday. He said the amendment would allow sportsbooks to decline to take such bets if “suspicious activity” is a concern, and would “suspend” the requirement should a bettor have already wagered $5,000 in a day, or if the bet in question could produce a payout of $1 million or more. Bill sponsor Michael Meredith, the chair of the House Banking and Insurance Committee, opposed the amendment.
Continue to the original source for the full article.