Iowa’s proposed prohibition on proxy betting is inching forward in the state legislature.
A bill that would make it illegal in Iowa to share online sportsbook accounts or place wagers on someone else’s behalf with the intent to conceal the true bettor advanced on Thursday from a subcommittee of the House of Representatives’ Public Safety Committee to the full committee.
The legislation took its tiny step forward even with some questions looming about what it could mean for sports betting in the Hawkeye State.
“At this time, we'll advance it to full committee for consideration, and questions will get answered in the interim,” Republican Rep. Steven Holt said during Thursday's meeting.
Not a wise policy being pursued in Iowa: criminalizing proxy betting
— Joe Brennan Jr (@joebrennanjr) January 16, 2025
If operators don't want it they can handle it in their T&Cs & ban people (most do)
But states have a compelling interest to get more betting liquidity into the regulated market https://t.co/GSyiSX7Mdf
Whether House Study Bill 21 will continue to make progress remains to be seen. March 7 is the final day for House bills to be reported out of their committees.
Nevertheless, the introduction of the bill last week caused a bit of a stir in the #gamblingtwitter ecosystem.
Joe Brennan Jr., the co-founder of bookmaker Prime Sports (which is not available in Iowa), also said on X/Twitter that criminalizing proxy betting was “not a wise policy.”
“If operators don't want it they can handle it in their [terms and conditions and] ban people (most do),” Brennan posted. “But states have a compelling interest to get more betting liquidity into the regulated market.”
Sharing is(n't) caring
H.S.B. 21 has the backing of Iowa’s Department of Public Safety. Josie Wagler, the legislative liaison for the department, told the subcommittee on Thursday that the bill was one of theirs.
Wagler also told the subcommittee that the online sports betting industry has “grown tremendously” since wagering was legalized in the state in 2019 and that the law has not kept up.
“We've seen a prevalence in account sharing and proxy betting taking place, and a lot of those activities lead to money laundering, identity theft, underage gambling, fraud,” Wagler said. “So with this addition of proxy betting and account sharing to illegal gaming, we feel like we can get a little bit better handle on those two issues that we're seeing here in Iowa.”
The legislation indeed proposes to define "proxy betting" and "account sharing" as illegal gambling in Iowa. It would subject those guilty of those offenses to criminal penalties, including jail time and fines.
According to the bill, “account sharing” means “entering into or participating in an agreement between two or more persons to, either temporarily or permanently, share access to a person’s account with the purpose of concealing a person’s identity."
Proxy betting, meanwhile, is defined in the bill as “any wagering or betting activity, including a request of another to engage in wagering or betting activity, involving two or more persons, where one person places a wager on behalf of another person with the intent to hide or conceal the bettor’s identity.”
The Iowa sports betting bill also aims to criminalize the act of "delivering anything of value to place as a wager in a pari-mutuel pool or other authorized system of wagering after receiving that thing of value, for a fee, outside of a gambling structure."
I now pronounce you proxy bettors
Again, though, there are questions about the bill as it heads toward a full committee hearing. Some raised during the subcommittee meeting came from the director of government affairs for the Iowa Association for Justice, Lisa Davis-Cook, who said they were undecided on the bill.
Davis-Cook asked if the legislation would prohibit account sharing by couples, such as a husband and wife. The answer was not picked up by the microphones in the committee room.
However, Democratic Rep. Elinor Levin said her reading of the bill was that it would not “impact” what Davis-Cook was talking about because the legislation has language having to do with trying to hide someone’s identity.
“I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe [it] would apply in what you're describing,” Levin said, adding later that the bill presents a “realistic and reasonable approach.”
