FanDuel Accused of Lobbying against Gambling Protections for the Vulnerable

Documents obtained through a freedom of information request have exposed attempts by one of the United States’ largest online gambling operators to weaken rules aimed at protecting young and vulnerable individuals and addressing problem gambling.

FanDuel, owned by the Dublin-based gambling giant Flutter Entertainment, allegedly lobbied against a proposed ban on specific words and phrases that could attract potential problem gamblers to their platforms.

Problem-Gambling Advocates Slam “Industry Hypocrisy”

New York, the nation’s largest gambling market with over $2.1 billion wagered last month, has become a battleground for operators seeking dominance in the lucrative industry since the legalization surge following the US Supreme Court’s 2018 decision.

The documents reveal FanDuel’s objections to proposed sports-betting advertising rules, particularly opposing restrictions on ads near college campuses where the legal age for gambling is 21. The company argued against a ban on using certain keywords to attract potential problem gamblers, claiming the rule was impractical and subjective, as reported by The Guardian.

Advocates for greater problem-gambling support expressed concern over the apparent hypocrisy of gambling companies that initially supported regulations before legalization but now seem intent on weakening them. 

Brianne Doura-Schawohl, a problem gambling lobbyist, stated that the industry is using responsible gambling practices to legalize markets but attempts to overturn regulations when influencing them.

FanDuel Calls Rules Subjective and Impractical in Real World Environment

FanDuel, which has not commented yet, has previously declared its commitment to player protection and promoting healthy gambling habits.

However, in a memo dated September 27, the New York State Gaming Commission’s general counsel, Edmund Burns, outlined FanDuel’s objections to rules prohibiting the use of keywords to attract potential problem gamblers. The company argued that the rule was subjective and impractical, likening it to a liquor store not being able to advertise to potential alcoholics.

Another contentious point was FanDuel’s objection to a ban on advertising near college campuses, arguing that the language was vague and could include unaffiliated residential and commercial areas nearby. The commission’s staff defended the ban, citing the need to prevent predatory marketing from reaching underage students.

The documents also revealed objections to rules for the fantasy sports market, with FanDuel opposing measures holding operators strictly liable for allowing prohibited individuals, such as minors, to use their platforms. The company also sought the removal of a rule requiring compulsive-gambling assistance messages in advertisements.

These revelations have sparked concerns among advocates and industry observers, highlighting the need for continued scrutiny and regulation to ensure the protection of consumers, particularly those vulnerable to problem gambling.