Sports Wagering - Gambling Prevention Technology Pilot Program - Establishment
HB0046 would create a Gambling Prevention Technology Pilot Program within the State Lottery and Gaming Control Commission. The pilot would require Bowie State University and Morgan State University to participate and would focus on reducing problem gambling among students on college campuses, testing the use of geofencing and other technologies to limit access to online sports wagering in designated campus “no gambling zones.” The bill also directs the Commission, working with the universities and the Maryland Center of Excellence on Problem Gambling, to identify campus boundaries, develop warning signage, and evaluate cost-effective technologies, including real-time monitoring of wagering activity.
Under the bill, online sports wagering operators would have to establish geofences around the designated zones so that users within those boundaries could not access wagering platforms. If a person attempts to wager from within a restricted area, the platform must block access and display a warning with information about the pilot program and responsible gambling assistance. The Commission would set the implementation timeline and report its findings to the Governor and General Assembly by January 1, 2031. The bill is temporary, taking effect July 1, 2026 and expiring June 30, 2031 unless extended by further legislative action.
HB0046 would add a new section to the State Government Article establishing a time-limited pilot program and imposing new operational requirements on online sports wagering operators during the pilot. It would affect the State Lottery and Gaming Control Commission, Bowie State University, Morgan State University, and licensed online sports wagering operators by requiring coordination on geofencing, signage, and enforcement. The bill would not broadly rewrite Maryland’s sports wagering laws, but it would create a targeted regulatory experiment aimed at campus-based problem gambling prevention and could inform future policy on geofencing and online wagering restrictions.
The available context suggests the bill was generally framed as a public-health and consumer-protection measure rather than a punitive gambling restriction. Its focus on problem gambling prevention, student protections, and responsible gambling assistance indicates a supportive or at least exploratory policy approach. However, the bill was ultimately withdrawn by the sponsor in the House, and there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided context to show broader legislative support or opposition.
The main potential points of contention are the feasibility and reliability of geofencing technology, the burden placed on online sports wagering operators, and whether such restrictions can be effectively enforced without overreaching or generating false positives. The bill explicitly anticipates technological failures and shields operators from fines or sanctions for unforeseeable failures, suggesting concern about implementation challenges. Another likely issue is the balance between protecting students from problem gambling and preserving lawful access to online wagering for adults outside the restricted zones, especially given the bill’s campus-specific restrictions and pilot nature.