73 Am. U. L. Rev. F. 1 (2023).

Download PDF Here!


In the landmark 2018 case Murphy v. NCAA, the Supreme Court repealed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. The Act was the federal blockade preventing states from legalizing sports gambling. Just over five years later, almost three-fourths of states have legalized sports wagering and now benefit from millions in tax revenue. Yet, legality does not equate to safety, and gambling can still be an extremely detrimental activity without guardrails. As states have passed their own legal gambling statutes over the past several years, some have decided to require more consumer protection than others.

This Comment argues that states that do not require sportsbooks to limit the ways in which gamblers can deposit money into their personal gambling accounts violate section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by facilitating an “unfair practice” that will lead to reasonably foreseeable injury. To prevent this injury, this Comment recommends the implementation of two financial instrument restrictions: a federal limit on credit gambling and a state duty to inform those who choose to gamble on credit why such a limit exists.

* Senior Staff Member, American University Law Review, Volume 73; J.D. Candidate, May 2024, American University Washington College of Law, B.A. Political Science and Communications, 2019, Wake Forest University.

Share this post