NY proposes AI promo ban as Massachusetts quizzes operators

New York's State Gaming Commission voted unanimously on 9 October 2026 to advance a proposed rule that would bar its licensees from using artificial intelligence and individual player data to decide who gets which promotion, bonus or bet suggestion. A second proposal would require mobile sportsbooks to flag and contact customers who show signs of gambling harm. Both are drafts: they now go out for a 60-day public comment period, and no date has been set for a final vote.

In Massachusetts, the Gaming Commission has gone a step earlier. A letter dated 9 October from Executive Director Dean Serpa asks every licensed sports wagering operator to explain in writing, by 3 November, how its systems choose who receives marketing, and whether a customer's losses play a part.

Both come weeks after The New York Times reported in September that DraftKings had scored online casino customers on how much more they were likely to wager and lose after receiving promotions, which we covered here. DraftKings told the Times it "rejects any implication that its marketing practices are unfair or improperly targets customers". New York's AI proposal itself predates that report: commission staff first circulated a draft in March.

What New York's AI rule would ban

According to the proposed rule text in the commission's 9 October public meeting book, the proposal adds a new Part 5404 to New York's gaming rules. Licensees, and any affiliate, agent or vendor acting for them, could not use automated decision systems or algorithmic profiling, including AI, machine learning or generative systems, that process an individual's data to select, customise, time or deliver any promotion, bonus, offer, odds, limit, message or product recommendation, or to suggest any wager, wager type or wager amount, in both cases "regardless of purpose or effect". A third limb catches anything else that influences a player's betting where "the purpose or foreseeable effect is to increase wagering, engagement or revenue".

What stays allowed:

• promotions offered uniformly to all eligible customers at the same time and through the same channels, under published objective criteria not derived from predicted behaviour;
• systems used only for fraud prevention, anti-money-laundering checks, age verification, or responsible-gambling steps designed to reduce betting.

Any offer, odds, limit or bet suggestion that varies between customers in a way linked to their personal data would be presumed to break the rule, unless the operator shows by clear and convincing evidence, backed by its logs, that the difference came solely from published objective criteria. Commission staff say the text makes substantive changes to the March version after industry feedback.

Early reports differed on whether customers could consent their way out of the ban and on which licensees it covers. The rule text settles both. "Human review or approval of system output does not exempt such activity and patron consent does not waive this subdivision except as provided in section 5404.2 of this Part," the draft says. Section 5404.2 is a narrow exception: a horse-racing licensee may offer a separate app that suggests pari-mutuel bets, only to customers who opt in, using only their own pari-mutuel betting history and information they provide, with no promotions, an opt-in that is off by default, and reconfirmation every 12 months. The ban is also not limited to mobile sportsbooks. The draft defines a licensee as "any person or entity licensed, registered, or authorized by the commission to conduct or facilitate wagering", naming among others gaming facility licensees, mobile sports wagering operators, video lottery gaming agents, racetracks, off-track betting corporations and lottery courier services.

For online players, that means New York's nine licensed mobile sportsbooks, as ProPublica counts them: the state has no legal online casino. The draft would also apply to the state's land-based casinos, racetracks, off-track betting corporations and other licensees.

The at-risk bettor rule

The second proposal, which commission staff say is based on a New Jersey rule proposal, applies to mobile sportsbooks only. Each mobile sportsbook would name a responsible-gambling lead and run a due-diligence review, including a look at financial vulnerability, when a customer hits any of a set of minimum triggers. They include:

• deposits of more than $10,000 in 24 hours or more than $100,000 in 90 days;
• more than $1 million wagered in 90 days;
• three or more visits to the self-exclusion page in 30 days without completing it;
• a jump of 50% or more in weekly time logged in, compared with the two weeks before.

Customers judged at risk would get escalating contact: an email about deposit, loss and time limits, cooling-off and self-exclusion; then a commission-approved video before they can bet again; then a phone or video call. If three calls go unanswered, the account would be suspended until the conversation happens. The rule would also stop customers cancelling a withdrawal within three days of requesting it, and bar operators from asking customers to reverse a pending withdrawal.

ProPublica, which reported on the proposals, points out that problem gambling can show up at much smaller amounts: its reporter deposited $21,600 at DraftKings in less than eight weeks while deliberately betting like a problem gambler, and the behaviour did not qualify for a company review. DraftKings says it already follows the New Jersey thresholds. Brianne Doura-Schawohl, a gambling-reform advocate, said in ProPublica's report that New York and New Jersey were endorsing regulations that are "nothing more than giving the appearance of reform and not effectuating actual change".

"The industry is on notice by me and this commission that they need to solve this problem," Chair Brian O'Dwyer said, ProPublica reported. After the vote he also urged licensees to share data so that problem gamblers cannot avoid intervention by moving between sportsbooks.

What Massachusetts is asking

The Massachusetts letter follows a 24 September instruction from Chair Jordan Maynard for staff to engage operators on AI and machine learning. Answers are voluntary and will be kept confidential; the commission says it will use them to develop AI policy. Its definition of AI is deliberately wide and covers any automated tool "regardless of whether" the operator calls it personalisation, optimisation or risk assessment.

The questions, set out in eight sections, go straight to the bonus engine. Among them: whether a player's net losses, deposits or response to earlier promotions feed marketing decisions; whether a sudden rise in betting makes a player more likely to receive an offer; whether players who have recently lost heavily are treated differently from players who bet as often but lose less; whether a system can send an offer with no human involved; and, if a regulator asked why one patron received a given promotion on a given date, whether the operator could say which data and model produced it.

Why this matters for bonus hunters

New York's draft would make personalised offers based on someone's betting data presumptively off limits and leave uniform, published promotions in place. Massachusetts is only collecting answers, which it says it will use to develop AI policy. Neither changes any offer today, and the New York texts can still change after the comment period.

Other regulators are taking different routes: Malta launched a voluntary AI charter for the sector, and Spain is consulting on a common model for detecting at-risk players.

18+ (21+ for US sports betting). Gambling can be addictive. If it stops being fun, see our responsible gambling page.