BETS OFF Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Casar, Greg [D-TX-35]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 3, 2026
Bottom line
The BETS OFF Act aims to prevent the financialization of sensitive and potentially harmful real-world events by explicitly outlawing wagers on such outcomes and integrating this prohibition into existing federal anti-gambling and financial regulations.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the BETS OFF Act, prohibits any person from placing, accepting, or facilitating wagers on "specified events," which include acts of terrorism, assassinations, wars, and certain non-financial events related to government actions or outcomes known in advance. It amends several existing federal statutes, including those related to racketeering, illegal gambling businesses, and unlawful internet gambling, to incorporate this new prohibition, and explicitly bars such transactions from being listed or traded on registered entities under the Commodity Exchange Act.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is essential to prevent the perverse incentive of profiting from catastrophic events like terrorism or assassinations, which undermines public trust and could pose national security risks. They contend it closes a critical loophole in federal law, ensuring that financial markets are not used to speculate on human suffering or the integrity of government functions, thereby upholding ethical standards and national security.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the definition of "specified event," particularly concerning non-financial events under government control or with known outcomes, could be overly broad and lead to unintended consequences for legitimate financial activities or research. Some may also raise concerns about potential federal overreach into areas traditionally regulated by states, or question the necessity of new legislation given existing laws that could potentially address such activities.
The bill is concise and clearly written, allowing an informed reader to quickly grasp its core provisions and implications.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short title of the Act as the "Banning Event Trading on Sensitive Operations and Federal Functions Act" and also provides a common, abbreviated title, the "BETS OFF Act." These titles are used for easy reference and identification of the legislation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a clear and memorable short title helps in public discourse and legislative tracking, making the bill's purpose more accessible.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the naming of a bill, as it is a standard legislative practice.
Tradeoffs
None
Section 2
Definitions of 'Specified Event' and 'Wager'
This section defines key terms. A "specified event" includes acts of terrorism, assassinations, wars, or any non-financial event whose outcome is controlled by a person, known in advance, or an action taken by a government entity. A "wager" is defined as staking something of value on an event's outcome for a return, but explicitly excludes lawful insurance policies with an insurable interest, including federal programs like the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, National Flood Insurance Program, and Federal Crop Insurance Program.
Section 3
Prohibition on Wagering Regarding Specified Events
This section makes it unlawful for any person to place, accept, or facilitate the placement or acceptance of a wager regarding a specified event. It also grants the Attorney General the authority to bring civil actions for injunctive relief in federal district courts against individuals or entities violating this prohibition.
Section 4
Amendments to Existing Federal Laws
This section integrates the new prohibition into several existing federal statutes. It amends 18 U.S.C. 1952(b) (Interstate and Foreign Travel or Transportation in Aid of Racketeering Enterprises) and 18 U.S.C. 1955(b) (Prohibition of Illegal Gambling Businesses) to include conduct prohibited by the BETS OFF Act. It also amends 31 U.S.C. 5362(1) (Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling) to include the new prohibition. Finally, it amends the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 7a-2(c)(5)) to explicitly prohibit any agreement, contract, transaction, or swap involving a specified event from being listed or traded on or through a registered entity.
The definition of 'specified event' includes 'any event... the primary underlying characteristic of which is not financial, commercial, or economic; and (i) that is an action taken by any government, unit of government, intergovernmental organization, or government official; (II) the outcome of which is under the complete control of any person; or (III) the outcome of which is known by any person in advance.'
Section 2(1)(D)
Why it matters:While definitions are standard, the breadth of this particular sub-clause could be easily overlooked by a casual reader focusing on the more sensational examples. It appears to be a comprehensive catch-all to prevent circumvention.
Case for: Proponents would argue this broad definition is necessary to prevent bad actors from finding loopholes to financialize other sensitive, non-financial events, especially those involving government actions or insider knowledge, thereby protecting public integrity and national security.
Case against: Critics might argue that this clause is overly broad and vague, potentially encompassing a wide range of activities not directly related to the bill's stated intent of preventing profit from catastrophic events. They might fear it could inadvertently chill legitimate research, journalism, or even political analysis that involves predicting government actions or outcomes.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the scope of prohibited wagering beyond acts of violence to include a wide array of non-financial events, particularly those involving government or known outcomes.
Amends the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 7a-2(c)(5)) to add a new subparagraph (D) which states: 'Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, no agreement, contract, transaction, or swap involving any specified event... (or any index, measure, value, or data related thereto, or occurrence, extent of an occurrence, or contingency based thereon), may be listed or made available for clearing or trading on or through a registered entity.'
Section 4(d)
Why it matters:Amending existing law is standard legislative practice. The technical language is necessary for precision within financial regulation, but it makes the provision less accessible to a general audience.
Case for: Proponents argue this amendment is crucial to prevent regulated financial markets from being used to facilitate the prohibited wagers, ensuring that the ban extends to sophisticated financial instruments like swaps and contracts that could otherwise be used to circumvent the law.
Case against: Some financial market participants might express concerns about the potential for regulatory uncertainty or the need for clear guidance on how this prohibition applies to complex derivatives, especially if the definition of 'specified event' is broadly interpreted. They might argue it could inadvertently impact legitimate risk management tools.
Estimated impact: Directly impacts the types of financial products that can be offered and traded on regulated exchanges, potentially preventing the creation of new speculative markets related to sensitive events.