Key Moments:
- New Jersey has set mandatory responsible gambling requirements, compelling operators to monitor 10 player behavior triggers.
- Industry experts highlight the absence of a universal self-exclusion system across gaming formats in the state.
- Recent studies reveal that New Jersey’s problem gambling rate is about three times the national average.
Statewide Responsible Gambling Mandates Take Effect
The New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE) has introduced mandatory responsible gambling (RG) protocols, requiring gaming operators to closely monitor 10 behavioral triggers. These triggers aim to identify individuals at risk of harmful gambling patterns, and include sudden increases in deposit amounts, repeated reversals of self-exclusion, and prolonged gambling sessions.
Keith Whyte, Founder & President of Safer Gambling Strategies LLC, described this policy change as a significant milestone for gambling safety standards in the United States. “It helps create a standardised—and safer—experience for all gamblers in New Jersey. Raising and formalising these standards shows leadership and provides a template for other states to follow,” he said.
Details of the New Operator Obligations
According to draft rules, every online gaming provider must appoint a Responsible Gaming Lead to oversee at-risk players. Operators are now tasked with tracking a defined list of 10 behavioral indicators, such as excessive deposits over a short period, hurried requests for “cool-off” periods, three sequential increases in deposit or loss limits within a single week, and sudden increases in play time or wager volume.
If a player is identified as at-risk, the operator must adhere to a three-step intervention protocol:
- Send the player an email containing responsible gambling information.
- Restrict further betting until the player views a responsible gambling tutorial video.
- Ensure that the Responsible Gaming Lead contacts the player directly by phone or video call.
Should the problematic behavior persist, operators may be required to close the player’s account.
Fragmented Self-Exclusion Remains a Challenge
While New Jersey has advanced RG requirements, its self-exclusion framework does not cover all gambling sectors. The state offers several self-exclusion channels, including in-person, video, online, and via player accounts, encompassing land-based and online casinos as well as sports betting. However, daily fantasy sports (DFS) is not included in the program, leading to what experts call a fragmented approach that diminishes the effectiveness of exclusion tools.
Technology providers, such as idPair with its The National Voluntary Self-Exclusion Program (NVSEP), provide free online applications for players seeking to exclude themselves from multiple platforms and jurisdictions. As Whyte stated, “The more operators and regulators join, the better the coverage and effectiveness.”
Legal Age Inconsistencies and Their Impact
Varying minimum age limits for gambling remain a concern in New Jersey. Casinos and sports betting require players to be 21, while the lottery, DFS, and horse racing set the minimum age at 18. Whyte argued that these inconsistencies complicate prevention strategies.
“I strongly encourage all states and tribes to set 21 as the minimum age for all gambling.” – Keith Whyte, Founder & President of Safer Gambling Strategies LLC
Whyte added that jurisdictions with a lower gambling age should encourage operators to adopt a voluntary minimum age of 21 to reduce risks for those aged 18 to 21.
Youthful Surge in Gambling Participation
A recent report from TransUnion indicated that Generation Z accounted for 34 percent and millennials 42 percent of all U.S. betting activity in Q2 2025. Both age groups are heavily engaged with online sports betting, online casinos, and other digital-first platforms. The report also links this surge to increasing financial stress among these younger bettors.
Problem Gambling Rates Significantly Higher in New Jersey
A Rutgers University study found that New Jersey’s problem gambling rate is approximately three times greater than the national average. There are demographic variations as well, with men forming the majority of online gamblers but women being more likely to engage in high-stakes wagering.
Whyte believes the complexity of these issues is compounded by limited research in other states. “New Jersey is one of the few states that actually studies problem gambling. I suspect other states have similarly high rates that remain hidden because of government indifference.”
Current Limitations and Recommendations for RG Tools
Existing responsible gambling features, such as deposit limits, time-outs, and instructional materials, provide helpful front-line support but often lack ties to sustained help. Whyte noted the difficulty in evaluating whether these tools truly prevent gambling addiction over time without comprehensive, long-term studies.
“Such studies face a huge challenge common across all addiction research—how do you measure a gambling problem that was prevented because someone set a limit?” he asked.
Federal Engagement and the Path Forward
Although nearly $13.7 billion was wagered legally in the U.S. sports betting market in 2024, according to the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG), none of the resulting federal tax proceeds have been allocated to responsible gambling or addiction treatment initiatives. This stands in contrast to billion-dollar federal investments in alcohol, tobacco, and drug recovery programs.
“By contrast, billions in federal funds are dedicated to alcohol, tobacco, and drug addiction,” Whyte pointed out. “Federal support is essential to provide national data and best practices, but states remain best positioned to implement services locally.”
Outlook for Legal Duty and Industry Accountability
Looking forward, Whyte urged lawmakers in New Jersey to create legislation that defines a legal “duty of care” for gambling operators. As clarified by the state Supreme Court, only legislative action can mandate such responsibility and liability. “Responsible gambling programmes can only be built on a solid foundation when the responsibility and liability of the gambling industry is clearly defined,” he concluded.
Summary of Responsible Gambling Reforms
| Policy Area | New Standard/Requirement | Current Limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Responsible Gambling Monitoring | Mandatory tracking of 10 behavioral triggers | Only applies to regulated operators; scope excludes some verticals |
| Operator Intervention | Three-step process: email, tutorial, direct outreach | Depends on accurate detection; account closure is discretionary |
| Self-Exclusion | Multiple registration methods offered | No universal system; DFS not included |
| Gambling Age | 21 for casinos/sports betting; 18 for others | Inconsistent standards hinder clarity |
| Federal Support | No federal RG funding allocated | Contrast to other regulated substances |
- Author
Daniel Williams
