Universities were emailing underage students encouraging them to place their first bet
As legal sports betting spread across more than three dozen American states, the gambling industry found itself at a crossroads between expansion and accountability. The American Gaming Association, responding to a chorus of state regulators, concerned lawmakers, and addiction advocates, voluntarily tightened its marketing code — banning college partnerships, athlete endorsements, and the seductive language of 'free' bets. It is a familiar arc in the story of industries that grow faster than the guardrails meant to contain them, and the question now is whether self-regulation will prove sufficient, or whether the weight of public harm will demand something more binding.
- College students — some not yet old enough to legally place a bet — were receiving promotional emails from sportsbooks operating through partnerships with their own universities.
- State regulators in New York, Ohio, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania had already begun fining and restricting sportsbooks before the industry moved to police itself.
- The American Gaming Association's new code bans college partnerships, prohibits payments to amateur athletes for endorsements, and eliminates misleading terms like 'risk-free' — effective immediately for new campaigns.
- A federal congressman has introduced legislation to ban all online sports betting advertising outright, signaling that voluntary industry action may not be enough to quiet Washington.
- Senator Blumenthal has sent letters to 66 universities demanding answers about their gambling partnerships and campus addiction policies, widening the circle of scrutiny.
- The industry's self-imposed rules carry no external enforcement mechanism, and the patchwork of state laws continues to grow — leaving the question of federal intervention very much open.
In late March, the American Gaming Association announced a new marketing code designed to rein in some of the more aggressive practices that had taken hold as legal sports betting expanded to 33 states and Washington, D.C. The code banned sportsbooks from entering partnerships with colleges, paying college or amateur athletes to promote their brands, and using words like 'free' or 'risk-free' to describe promotional offers. All member companies agreed to comply immediately, though those with existing campaigns had until July 1 to wind them down.
The announcement came under real pressure. New York's Gaming Commission had adopted similar rules in February. Ohio had fined multiple sportsbooks for misleading promotional language and penalized DraftKings specifically for mailing advertisements to people under 21. Massachusetts and Pennsylvania had moved in the same direction. Association president Bill Miller acknowledged the industry had 'taken some jabs,' but framed the new code as a proactive commitment to responsible advertising rather than a retreat under fire.
The practices being curtailed were not abstract. Caesars Entertainment had partnered with both Michigan State University and Louisiana State University — the LSU arrangement resulting in promotional emails sent to students, some underage, encouraging them to place their first bet. The University of Colorado Boulder had a deal with PointsBet offering referral bonuses. In total, five such college-sportsbook partnerships existed. Keith Whyte of the National Council on Problem Gambling welcomed the restrictions, noting that sports bettors face higher rates of addiction and that many sports fans are simply too young to legally participate.
Not everyone in Washington was satisfied. Representative Paul Tonko introduced legislation to ban all online sports betting advertising entirely, arguing that betting companies had spent billions to place their messages on every screen in America. Senator Richard Blumenthal sent letters to 66 colleges and universities pressing them on their sportsbook relationships and campus addiction resources. New Jersey was weighing its own bills to prohibit public university partnerships with sportsbooks and to formally condemn the proliferation of gambling advertisements. The industry had moved — but the political current pushing for something more enforceable showed no sign of slowing.
On a Tuesday in late March, the American Gaming Association announced it was tightening the rules on how the gambling industry could market itself. The move came as legal sports betting had expanded to 33 states and Washington, D.C., creating a landscape where sportsbooks were increasingly visible and aggressive in their pursuit of new customers. The association, which represents the commercial gambling industry, said it would ban partnerships between sportsbooks and colleges, prohibit payments to college and amateur athletes for endorsements using their name or image, and eliminate the use of words like "free" or "risk-free" when describing promotional bets.
The timing of the announcement reflected mounting pressure from multiple directions. Regulators in several states had already begun cracking down on the industry's marketing practices. New York's Gaming Commission had adopted similar rules in February. Ohio had fined three sportsbooks for using misleading promotional language and penalized DraftKings for sending direct mail advertisements to people under 21. Massachusetts and Pennsylvania had also moved to ban such terminology. The pressure was not limited to state action—a congressman from New York had introduced legislation that would ban all online and digital sports betting advertising entirely.
Bill Miller, the association's president and CEO, framed the new code as a proactive step. He acknowledged that the industry had "taken some jabs" on certain practices, but insisted that establishing high standards for responsible advertising and consumer protection had always been the association's priority. The code would be reviewed annually going forward. All members of the association agreed to comply with the new rules, which took effect immediately, though companies with existing advertising campaigns that violated the rules would be allowed to continue them until July 1.
The specifics of what the industry had been doing became clear in the details. At Michigan State University, Caesars Entertainment had struck a partnership to promote sports betting. Louisiana State University had a similar deal with Caesars that resulted in the university sending emails to students—some of whom were not yet old enough to legally gamble—encouraging them to place their first bet and claim a bonus. The University of Colorado Boulder had partnered with PointsBet on a deal that offered a $30 referral bonus each time someone signed up using the university's promotional code. Maryland and the University of Denver had their own sportsbook partnerships as well. In total, five such arrangements existed between gambling companies and colleges.
Keith Whyte, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling, welcomed the new restrictions. He pointed out that many sports fans are underage and that people who gamble on sports experience higher rates of gambling addiction. The new code required that anyone appearing in sports betting advertisements be at least 21 years old and restricted advertising to media where at least 73.6 percent of the audience was reasonably expected to be 21 or older.
But the association's voluntary action did not appear to satisfy everyone in Washington. U.S. Representative Paul Tonko, a New York Democrat, had introduced legislation to prohibit online and digital sports betting advertising altogether. He described the situation as one where betting companies had spent billions to ensure their advertisements reached every screen in America, and he argued that Congress needed to intervene to prevent widespread harm. Meanwhile, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut sent letters to 66 colleges and universities asking about their partnerships with sportsbooks, their efforts to prevent underage gambling, and their treatment of gambling addiction on campus.
New Jersey was considering its own legislative response. A pending bill would prohibit sportsbook partnerships with public colleges and universities, and another would condemn what lawmakers saw as the over-proliferation of pro-gambling advertisements in the state. The patchwork of state-level action suggested that while the gambling industry had moved to regulate itself, the political momentum for stricter rules—potentially at the federal level—was building.
Notable Quotes
It has always been important that we get sports betting right. It's always been our No. 1 interest in creating a high bar for responsible advertising and protecting consumers.— Bill Miller, president and CEO of the American Gaming Association
The code is so important because many sports fans are underage, and we also know that people who gamble on sports have higher rates of gambling problems.— Keith Whyte, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did the gambling industry decide to adopt these rules now, rather than waiting for regulation to force them?
They were already being forced. States were fining sportsbooks, Congress was drafting bills, and the partnerships with colleges were becoming indefensible—especially when universities were emailing underage students about betting bonuses. The association moved to get ahead of the narrative.
But they're allowing companies to keep running old ads until July. That seems like a loophole.
It is, in a way. But it's also practical—you can't shut down a national advertising campaign overnight. The real test is whether the industry actually enforces this on itself, or whether states have to keep fining individual companies for violations.
What's the human problem here that everyone's worried about?
College students, including minors, were being directly targeted with gambling promotions by their own universities. A student at LSU got an email from the school telling them to place their first bet. That's not abstract—that's institutional endorsement of gambling to people who can't legally do it.
Is this code actually going to stop that?
It stops the partnerships themselves, which is significant. But it doesn't stop sportsbooks from advertising on ESPN or during March Madness. It just means they can't partner with the schools directly or pay athletes to promote betting.
What happens if Congress passes Tonko's bill?
That would ban all online and digital sports betting advertising. It's a much harder line than what the industry just agreed to. If that passes, the code becomes almost irrelevant—the whole business model changes.
Why are senators like Blumenthal asking colleges about their addiction treatment?
Because they're trying to document the gap between what the industry says it cares about and what's actually happening on campuses. If a school has a gambling partnership but no addiction services, that's a problem worth naming.