GAME Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 18, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to protect minors from the harms of sports gambling by banning targeted advertising for such platforms on major digital services, backed by significant enforcement powers for federal agencies.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits large digital advertising platforms from displaying targeted advertisements that promote sports gambling platforms to individuals under 18 years of age. It defines what constitutes a 'covered digital advertising platform' and a 'targeted advertisement directed to a minor,' and establishes both civil enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and criminal penalties for repeat offenders referred to the Attorney General.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this legislation is crucial for protecting children and adolescents from the increasing risks of gambling addiction, given the pervasive nature of online advertising and the rapid expansion of legal sports betting. They contend that minors are particularly vulnerable to sophisticated targeting techniques and that a federal prohibition is necessary to safeguard their well-being.
Opponents contend
Opponents, particularly from the digital advertising and sports gambling industries, may argue that the bill imposes overly broad restrictions on legitimate advertising, raises significant technical challenges for age verification without infringing on privacy, and could lead to unintended consequences such as driving advertising to less regulated platforms. They might also contend that existing parental controls and industry self-regulation are sufficient.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, allowing for a quick read and understanding of its core provisions.
Section 2(a)
Prohibition on Targeted Sports Gambling Ads to Minors
This section makes it illegal for large digital advertising platforms to show ads for sports gambling services to anyone under 18, if those ads are specifically targeted based on the minor's personal information, online behavior, or device identifiers. This prohibition takes effect one year after the bill becomes law, giving platforms time to adapt their systems.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses a critical public health concern by shielding vulnerable minors from predatory advertising that could lead to gambling addiction. They believe it creates a necessary barrier to protect children in an increasingly digital world where such ads are pervasive.
Critics contend
Critics may contend that this prohibition is an overreach, potentially limiting the ability of platforms to deliver relevant content and services, and that it places an undue burden on platforms to accurately verify age without collecting more personal data. They might also argue it infringes on commercial speech rights.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the protection of minors from potential harm against the commercial interests of advertising platforms and gambling companies, and the technical challenges of precise age-gating in digital environments.
Section 2(b)(1)
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement
This section grants the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the authority to enforce the prohibition. Violations will be treated as unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act, allowing the FTC to use its full range of powers, including investigations, civil penalties, and the ability to issue new rules to clarify how the law should be carried out.
Section 2(b)(2)
Criminal Enforcement for Repeat Violations
This section introduces a criminal penalty for platforms that repeatedly violate the prohibition. If a covered digital advertising platform is found in violation or settles an enforcement action three or more times, the FTC must refer the case to the Attorney General for criminal prosecution. Convicted platforms could face fines of up to $100,000 for each targeted advertisement displayed in the referred instance and any subsequent violations.
The definition of 'covered digital advertising platform' includes a threshold requiring more than 100,000,000 unique monthly users or visitors.
Section 2(c)(3)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms precisely, but the specific numerical threshold is a key policy choice that could be easily missed.
Case for: Proponents of this threshold argue it focuses enforcement on the largest platforms with the broadest reach, where the potential for harm to minors is greatest, while avoiding undue burden on smaller businesses. It targets the entities with the most significant impact on the digital advertising ecosystem.
Case against: Critics might argue that this threshold creates a loophole, allowing smaller but still significant platforms to continue targeting minors with sports gambling ads, potentially shifting problematic advertising to these less regulated spaces. They may contend that the harm to minors is not exclusive to the largest platforms.
Estimated impact: Significantly narrows the scope of the bill to only the largest social media platforms, search engines, and ad networks, exempting a large number of smaller online services and applications.
The definition of 'targeted advertisement directed to a minor that promotes a sports gambling platform' includes specific exclusions for certain types of ads: those in direct response to a user's request, those displayed based on content (not viewer information), and processing for ad performance measurement.
Section 2(c)(10)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify the precise scope of a prohibition and prevent unintended consequences or overreach, but the technical nature of the language can obscure its importance.
Case for: Supporters argue these exclusions are crucial for ensuring the bill does not inadvertently ban legitimate or non-harmful advertising practices. They prevent the bill from stifling user-initiated information requests or basic content-based advertising, and allow for essential ad measurement without being deemed 'targeting.'
Case against: Some critics might argue that these exclusions could be exploited by platforms to circumvent the spirit of the law, particularly the 'content-based' exclusion, if not rigorously defined and enforced. They might suggest that any ad promoting gambling to a minor is problematic, regardless of the targeting mechanism.
Estimated impact: Provides important carve-outs that limit the scope of the prohibition, allowing certain forms of advertising to continue even if a minor is exposed to them, provided they are not 'targeted' as defined.