Kayode is a professional iGaming content writer and slots lover with extensive experience covering casino reviews, sportsbook platforms, top betting apps, among other emerging digital gambling products. He is known for creating sharp engaging iGaming content which readers absolutely love to read. He has a strong background in SEO, regulatory insights, and freelance coaching.
The rise of self-exclusion registrations across multiple U.S. jurisdictions offering legal sports wagering and online casino gaming is an emerging issue that has caught the attention of all stakeholders; including regulatory bodies, operators and public health research entities. The numbers indicate a reality which the industry must seriously consider as there is an increase in individuals who recognize their own problem gambling behavior and take action by formally excluding themselves from access to legalized gaming products. It is essential that each interested party understands the reasons behind the increasing number of self-exclusions, and what these actual numbers signify in order to have input into the future development of this market.
The Data: What States Are Reporting
| State | Self-Exclusions (2022) | Self-Exclusions (2025) | Year-on-Year Trend |
|
New Jersey |
~18,400 |
~31,200 | +69% over three years |
| Pennsylvania | ~11,700 | ~24,500 | +109% over three years |
| Michigan | ~8,900 | ~19,800 | +122% over three years |
| Colorado | ~5,200 | ~11,400 | +119% over three years |
|
Illinois |
~9,100 |
~21,600 |
+137% over three years |
|
Virginia |
~4,300 | ~10,900 |
+153% over three years |
Two Ways to Read the Numbers
It’s necessary to hold two simultaneous interpretations before reaching conclusions. Each of these contains some measure of truth.
- The first interpretation is negative; growing self-exclusions indicate that there are more gamblers developing gambling-related harms in jurisdictions where gambling has expanded into new or additional channels (i.e., online gambling) and access has been made simpler and more accessible than ever before. Mobile Sports Betting, in particular, is an area of concern due to the ease at which bets may be placed (a bet may be placed within thirty seconds from virtually anywhere). The large increases experienced by Illinois and Virginia (both considered newer and large market areas) support this interpretation.
- A second interpretation is moderately optimistic; growing self-exclusions could represent greater awareness of existing harms, better visibility/accessibility of exclusion tools on gaming platforms, and decreasing social stigma associated with seeking assistance for gambling-related issues. An increase in self-exclusions does not equate to an increase in gambling-related harms. Rather, if increasing numbers of individuals who experience gambling-related harms are able to find and utilize exclusion tools, then the exclusion number will likely grow. As such, if self-exclusion systems become increasingly well known, easily utilized, and viewed positively in society, then increased self-exclusion registration rates would suggest that the harm reduction infrastructure is functioning.
What’s Driving Access and Awareness
The above shows that there are some very specific factors driving the growth in registered exclusions above and beyond the increased size of the gaming markets:
- The mandatory inclusion of responsible gambling help lines and/or links to a self-exclusion program in all regulated gambling advertisements. Advertising is how most players first hear about self-exclusion programs; seeing the same disclosure again and again will result in many more players knowing where to go for assistance at the right time
- Operators are being forced to put in place proactive “responsible gaming” messages (in-app) which can be prompted as a result of certain behaviours such as extended sessions or rapid sequence deposits. These proactive messages are registering players who would not normally have volunteered to exclude themselves
- A National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) representative said that along with an increase in call volume to the 1-800-GAMBLER national help line since new gaming was introduced into New York State, the counselors were able to assist callers with enrolling into the self-exclusion program while still on the phone
The Online vs. Land-Based Dynamic
One of the most important changes we’ve seen in how people sign up for self-exclusion programs has been how much the number of players who get into these programs through online gambling versus land based casino trips. Self-exclusion was originally designed with brick-and-mortar casinos as the focus: you go to your local casino, fill out a form, your picture gets sent to the employees so when you walk in they know to kick you out.
Self-exclusion is very different for online gaming, and it’s better. For example, an online exclusion tied to your verified ID can prevent you from creating accounts on every single platform where exclusion has been entered in a particular state. And, unlike a floor person not recognizing you, you can’t just decide to avoid being recognized by them. Many states have put a lot of money into developing identity-linked exclusion systems which create real barriers (not just symbolic) to keep someone out of a particular type of gaming.
The problem remains to enforce those barriers at the edges. Someone banned from participating in licensed gaming options in their own state may still find ways to play on foreign sites, unlicensed sites, “sweepstakes” style casinos using virtual currencies, and “social casino” applications. The self-exclusion program addresses the regulation portion of the industry but does not address all areas of the internet landscape of gaming products adjacent to traditional gaming. Advocacy groups and regulatory bodies understand this limitation and are working together to close the gaps.
The Regulatory Response
Many state gaming regulators do view increasing self-exclusion numbers as an item that is not being treated passively. They are examining whether or how they need to modify (tighten) their respective responsible gaming policies based upon these emerging trends.
There are several areas currently under review by various state gaming regulators. These include requiring mandatory minimum deposit limits for all newly created player accounts; increasing the required level of age/identity verification at time of player account creation; limiting promotional offers made to already registered players who have been identified as having loss patterns; and creating a requirement that online gaming operators donate a specified percent of their gross gaming revenue to support problem gambling treatment programs, with this donation amount being tied to the relative size of the online gaming market in each jurisdiction rather than some arbitrarily established rate.
What This Means for the Market’s Long-Term Health
An industry that fails to address its risk factors does not remain sustainable for very long (and given how new an iGaming industry in the United States is) the choices made today regarding harm prevention systems (responsible gaming) will influence the sustainability of the U.S. iGaming industry for at least a decade. As such, those states which create and fund strong harm reduction systems in addition to their revenue models are developing industries with potential for long term public support and political acceptance; while those states treating responsible gaming as a mere “compliance check box” are creating opportunities for problems to arise during future legislatures.