The Legal and Regulatory Landscape for In-Play Betting Across Different States

Let’s be honest: the thrill of sports betting has always been tied to the action. And nothing captures the live, pulsating energy of a game quite like in-play betting—placing a wager after the opening whistle blows, the first pitch is thrown, or the tip-off happens. It’s betting in real-time, a dynamic chess match between your gut and the unfolding drama.

But here’s the deal. While the 2018 repeal of PASPA opened the floodgates for sports betting in the U.S., the rules for this specific, fast-paced format are a tangled patchwork. The legal and regulatory landscape for in-play betting isn’t just state-by-state; it’s a maze of specific permissions, technological hurdles, and cautious oversight. Navigating it feels less like reading a rulebook and more like learning a new language for each jurisdiction.

What Exactly Is In-Play Betting? A Quick Refresher

Also called live betting, it’s simply wagering on events after they’ve started. Think betting on the next team to score in an NFL game, the next point in a tennis match, or even the outcome of a specific at-bat in baseball. The odds shift constantly, mirroring the flow of the game. It’s incredibly engaging, which is precisely why regulators eye it so carefully.

The Core Regulatory Hurdle: Data and Latency

Before we dive into state laws, you need to understand the big technical sticking point. Regulators are obsessed with integrity and consumer protection. For in-play to work fairly, two things are critical:

• Official Data: Many states mandate that operators use official league data to settle certain bets. This is meant to prevent errors or manipulation.
• Minimal Latency: There can’t be a significant delay between what’s happening on the field and what’s shown on the betting app. A 10-second delay could allow someone with a live feed to exploit a discrepancy—a huge no-no.

These requirements shape the entire in-play market. Operators must invest heavily in tech and data partnerships, and states have to craft rules that address these very real concerns without stifling the product entirely.

A State-by-State Snapshot: The Spectrum of Permission

Okay, let’s get into the weeds. States fall on a broad spectrum when it comes to live betting regulations. Honestly, it’s all over the map.

The Green Light States (With Caveats)

States like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Colorado are generally permissive. They allow a wide array of in-play markets but often tie them to that official data requirement for “tier 2” bets (things like next batter to get a hit, next play outcome). The framework is there, it’s robust, and operators offer a full suite of live options.

The Restrictive or “Not Yet” States

This is where it gets tricky. Some states have built-in limitations.

• Michigan: Allows in-play betting, but initially had a rule requiring bets be placed from within a casino property. That’s since been lifted for mobile, showing how rules evolve.
• New York: Permits live betting, but the tax structure is so high it impacts how aggressively operators can market and innovate on the product.
• New Hampshire & Oregon: As state-run monopoly markets, their in-play offerings are limited to what the sole operator (like DraftKings in NH) provides. Choice is minimal.

The Holdouts

Then you have states like Ohio, which launched with a controversial ban on “prop bets on individual athlete performance” in college sports—a huge chunk of live betting menus. Or states like Kansas, which initially had a prohibition on live betting on in-state college teams, a rule that was later repealed. It’s a fluid situation.

The Tribal Compaction Wildcard

In states like California, Washington, and New Mexico, where gaming is largely governed by tribal compacts, the situation is even more complex. A state might not have commercial mobile betting, but a tribal operator could offer in-play betting within the confines of their physical sportsbook under their compact. It creates a patchwork within a patchwork.

Trends and Pain Points: Where’s This All Heading?

You can feel the market straining against some of these limits. The demand for live betting is massive—often accounting for over 70% of operator handle in mature markets. Regulators are caught between fostering a competitive, safe market and preventing problem gambling, which in-play can potentially exacerbate due to its fast nature.

A major trend? The slow, steady erosion of the most restrictive rules. States see tax revenue flowing from neighbors with more liberal regimes and feel the pressure to adapt. That Ohio college prop bet ban? It’s under constant scrutiny. Those in-state college betting prohibitions? They’re starting to look like outdated protectionism.

Another pain point? Consistency. An operator working in five states might need five different compliance protocols for what is essentially the same product. It’s inefficient and slows innovation.

Final Thoughts: A Landscape in Motion

So, what’s the takeaway? The legal landscape for in-play betting across different states is less a finished map and more a live GPS route constantly recalculating. It’s defined by a tension between technological possibility and regulatory caution.

For bettors, it means always checking the local fine print. That amazing live market available in New Jersey might be verboten just across the river in New York, or restricted down the coast in Virginia. For the industry, it’s a costly, complex puzzle.

The direction of travel, though, seems clear. The gravitational pull of consumer demand and economic benefit is strong. Regulations will likely continue to refine—focusing more on responsible gambling tools (like mandatory latency buffers or deposit limits for live betting) rather than outright bans on markets. The game isn’t just happening on the field; it’s happening in statehouses and regulatory meetings. And honestly, that game might be the most unpredictable one to bet on of all.