An Act To Amend Title 28 And Title 29 Of The Delaware Code Relating To Student Athlete Protection.
HB314 creates a new offense in Delaware for “student athlete harassment,” aimed at threats, sports-related bullying, and cyber-bullying directed at student athletes in connection with their performance in intercollegiate sports. The bill defines harassment broadly to include threats of harm to the athlete or the athlete’s immediate family, as well as repeated unwanted conduct intended to harm, intimidate, or humiliate and that causes emotional distress. It also defines terms related to electronic communications, social networks, and log files to support enforcement in online settings.
The bill also gives a victimized student athlete a private right of action against a person convicted under the new offense, with available remedies including at least $75,000 in statutory damages per intentional violation, actual damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and attorney fees. In addition, it amends Delaware’s gaming laws to require the State Lottery Office to exclude convicted violators from participating in lottery and sports wagering activities, and to allow emergency exclusion of persons who threaten harm to a student athlete in connection with a sports lottery game. The bill further requires the Director and Division of Gaming Enforcement to establish a reporting method for student athletes and coaches.
HB314 would add a new section to Title 28 of the Delaware Code and make related changes to Title 29 governing lottery exclusions. It also creates limited obligations for social media and electronic communications providers to disclose certain records only under warrant, court order, or consent, while preserving protections for providers acting in the ordinary course of business. The measure is framed as a response to the rise in sports betting and online harassment of college athletes, and it links criminal enforcement, civil liability, and gaming regulation into one enforcement scheme.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill materials is supportive and protective of student athletes. The synopsis emphasizes NCAA data and reports of abusive messages tied to gambling interests, suggesting the bill is intended to address a growing problem and align Delaware with broader efforts to curb harassment associated with sports wagering. No committee debate or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition in the supplied materials.
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the new offense, the substantial minimum statutory damages, and the privacy and compliance implications for electronic communications and social media providers. Questions may also arise about how broadly “sports-related bullying” and threat-related conduct are interpreted, and whether the lottery exclusion provisions and reporting requirements are sufficiently targeted to gambling-related misconduct.
HB314 would amend Title 28 by creating a new criminal offense for student athlete harassment and a related civil remedy, and it would amend Title 29 to require exclusion from Delaware lottery and sports wagering activities for persons convicted of the offense or, in some cases, those accused of threatening a student athlete. The bill also adds reporting and disclosure procedures involving the Division of Gaming Enforcement and certain electronic communications service providers, while preserving provider immunity and limiting record-retention obligations except where a warrant or court order applies. Affected parties include student athletes, coaches, prosecutors, courts, the State Lottery Office, gaming regulators, and online communications platforms.
The overall sentiment in the bill materials is favorable, with the legislation presented as a protective response to harassment of student athletes linked to the growth of sports betting. The synopsis cites NCAA survey data and examples of abusive messages to justify the need for action, indicating a public-safety and athlete-welfare rationale. Because no committee transcript or vote record was provided, there is no documented opposition or divided sentiment in the supplied context.
The most likely areas of contention are the scope of the prohibited conduct, the use of a criminal statute to address online harassment, and the bill’s strong civil penalties, including a $75,000 minimum statutory damages award per intentional violation. Privacy and due-process concerns may also arise from the disclosure provisions for social media log files and electronic communications, as well as from the emergency exclusion authority tied to accusations or threats. Stakeholders most likely to scrutinize these provisions include civil liberties advocates, technology and communications providers, gaming operators, and those concerned about overbreadth or enforcement standards.