It’s bad news for avid gamblers and casino operators alike in South Dakota as the state rules to kill a proposed bill that sought to get the ball rolling on the regulation of online sports gambling. The proposed bill failed to pass a floor vote in the House of Representatives. As it stands, the South Dakota gambling laws only permits in-person sports gambling in the brick-and-mortar casinos based in Deadwood and tribal casinos. The proposed bill looked to expand on the current regulatory foundation in South Dakota; in order to provide a broader range of gambling options for local punters. The reality is, this proposal would have really increased sports betting behavior; as it would have afforded punters the leisure of placing wagers from anywhere within the state. While the availability of mobile casinos offering free bets and no deposit bonuses is indeed an attractive one; it’s not as black and white as South Dakotans would wish. For starters, the implementation of geofencing software needs to be established. This would guarantee the verification of in-state transactions.

Online Gambling Takes A Back Seat in South Dakota

Unfortunately, the failure of the proposed bill means that for now at least; local gamblers won’t have the option to partake in any for mobile better anywhere in South Dakota. Mobile gambling would have the potential to grow the sports betting activity in the state; but sadly not everyone sees it that way. So, for the time being, the industry will need to sit tight as any changes to the legal makeup of sports betting in South Dakota have been halted. The proposed bill sought to allow voters to express their views on whether the state should legalize sports gambling further; and expand offerings by allowing interactive options during the next general election.

Taking Current Legislation To The Next Level

Despite the fact that the bill was seemingly dismissed by the House of Representatives; its proponents claim that it actually sought to tackle several gambling-related problems that current legislation doesn’t do sufficiently. Despite the fact that those opposing the new bill are somewhat driven by a fear that mobile gambling; would detrimentally impact the business of land-based Deadwood casinos, the bill’s primary sponsor, Rep. Greg Jamison, believes otherwise. In a recent statement, Jamison actually went as far as to say that the lack of mobile gambling legislation in South Dakota is actually serving to create issues and exacerbate problems rather than improve the situation. He also went on to emphasize the fact that additional funds generated from online gambling could be reinvested into the local community and used to preserve historic Deadwood.

Looking At The Bigger Picture

Jamison also pointed out that not allowing online gambling to be legal in the state played a role in the growth of black market gambling activities. At the end of the day, gamblers would rather place a wager remotely rather than physically go to a land-based casino. Moreover, he reiterated the fact that by not embracing mobile gambling; South Dakota was missing out on the income-generating potential of the industry. Essentially, Jamison backed the bill because he believed it gave the state the opportunity to embrace change; and regulate the online gambling industry to ensure that all parties were compliant with the law and benefited from the revenue which could be invested in the future of the city of Deadwood.

Opposing Arguments

On the other side of the fence, opposing voices, such as that of Rep. John Mills, expressed concerns about what the growth of gambling activities could mean for South Dakota. Mills drew particular attention to the soaring rates of addiction in the state. At present, it is believed that there are between 15,000 and 20,000 addicts and a study by WalletHub revealed that South Dakota was the second most gambling-addicted state. Although he did not deny that black market operations exist in South Dakota; he did express that there were likely to be connections between these activities and rates of addiction.

In Conclusion

At the end of the day, the rejection of the bill doesn’t mean it is all over for gamblers in South Dakota. It is evident that the gambling industry will continue to develop; and if the state is unable to fully embrace the change in some way, it will face several problems related to the black market. While opposition to the legalization of mobile betting exists; it looks like legislators in South Dakota will need to find a way to move forward; as the status quo is simply not working.