A newly proposed bill seeks to limit students’ exposure to gaming-related advertisements across public higher education campuses in Connecticut, particularly those targeting students under the legal gambling age.

House Bill 5271, “An Act Prohibiting Gaming-Related Advertising, Marketing and Promotional Activities at Public Institutions of Higher Education,” was discussed during the General Law Committee’s public hearing Wednesday.

Paul Tarbox, director of public policy and communications for the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling, says he strongly supports the legislation. 

“College students, especially males, are really prone to abusing gambling when it comes to sports betting and casinos,” Tarbox said. “Expanding the bill to include restrictions on certain displays on campus-wide internet or communication systems just makes sense from a safety standpoint.”

Tarbox emphasized the importance of protecting vulnerable student populations, citing past instances where universities partnered with gambling operators, potentially exposing students to aggressive marketing tactics. He noted that while banning access to gambling apps outright could push students toward unregulated “black sites,” this bill aims to curb advertising without driving risky behavior underground. 

“If you completely ban access to gambling apps, it’s not necessarily going to stop the behavior,” Tarbox said. “They’re just going to go to illegal, unregulated sites where there are no safety measures like time or money limits. Regulated platforms at least provide resources and support for those who need help.”

State Rep. Roland Lemar, D-New Haven, agreed with Tarbox. 

“Figuring out ways to protect vulnerable students from targeted marketing and advertising is a responsible consideration,” Lemar said during the hearing.

While many view the bill as a preventive measure to curb problem gambling, the University of Connecticut raised concerns over potential financial ramifications. Neal Eskin, UConn’s executive associate athletic director, submitted written testimony in partial opposition to the legislation. 

Eskin specifically objects to provisions that could threaten the university’s existing corporate sponsorships, which are managed through Learfield, UConn’s multimedia rights holder.

“UConn is categorically against direct solicitation of students by or on behalf of gambling entities,” Eskin wrote in his testimony. “However, practices such as displaying the Mohegan Sun logo on the floor of Gampel Pavilion and showcasing logos of Mohegan Sun and the Connecticut Lottery in the arena are industry standards and vital to our financial sustainability.”

Eskin noted that UConn’s athletic programs regularly compete at venues like the XL Center in Hartford and Mohegan Sun Arena, facilities that feature sports betting locations visible to all spectators, including students. He urged lawmakers to clarify the bill’s language to avoid unintentionally restricting essential revenue streams for the university. 

“We firmly believe this legislation aims to prevent gambling companies from directly soliciting students, especially those underage,” Eskin wrote. “If that’s the intent, we request that be made explicit to preserve institutions’ ability to generate much-needed revenue.” 

State Rep. David Rutigliano, R-Trumbull, also weighed in, suggesting that the issue warrants broader discussion. 

“I think this should’ve been part of a larger conversation,” Rutigliano said. “It’s not just about advertising to students. There are certain types of ads we need to examine more closely to determine whether they’re predatory.”

The bill was introduced by the General Law Committee and is co-sponsored by Rutigliano and state Rep. Craig C. Fishbein, R-Wallingford.