What the Research Shows about Mobile Sports Betting

Wisconsin is taking steps to legalize sports betting on your phone, joining 32 states who have already done so. In November, a bipartisan bill to legalize mobile sports betting advanced out of committee in both houses of the Wisconsin legislature, before being pulled from the agenda shortly before a scheduled vote in the Assembly. Opponents to the bill include those who oppose mobile sports betting on the merits, as well the trade organization for DraftKings and Fanduel, who oppose the bill for their own, very different reasons.According to reporting by WPR, the bill’s sponsor intends to reintroduce it in early 2026.

Over the past couple of years, economists have undertaken a number of interesting studies measuring the consequences of legalized sports betting on consumers. This post summarizes some of their major findings.

Sports betting—mobile or otherwise—was limited to just a handful of locations in the country prior to 2018, when the US Supreme Court struck down the federal law banning most forms of sports gambling.

Since then, states legalized gambling at different paces and in different forms, sometimes limited to physical sportsbook locations, sometimes through the internet. Wisconsin legalized tribal sportsbooks in 2021, but they are limited to brick-and-mortar locations, of which there are currently 27.

The rollout of legal sports betting at different times in different places creates a sort of natural experiment, allowing researchers to quantify legal gambling’s consequences.

Researchers have studied questions like: how much do gamblers spend on gambling? What did they spend this money on before sports betting became easily available? How many bettors become “problem” gamblers?

We can imagine more or less troubling answers to each of these questions. Maybe sports bettors are just wagering money they would’ve otherwise spent on other kinds of entertainment. On the other hand, maybe they are gambling money they can’t afford to lose.

A 2024 paper by Scott Baker et al. tackled these questions using a transaction-level dataset of household spending. The dataset was assembled by a private firm from bank, credit card, and financial technology records. Using this data, the authors could measure all kinds of spending by households, before and after online betting legalization, including spending on sportsbooks like DraftKings and Fanduel as well as traditional investments like Vanguard or Fidelity.

In their study, about 14% of households in legalized states engaged in mobile sports betting. The average household bet $102 per quarter, but there was a lot of variation. The lowest third of bettors only deposited an average of $1.39 per quarter, while the highest third of bettors deposited $299 per quarter with an online sportsbook. Among those who ever bet, 20% deposited money only once, 70% did so at least three times, and 40% made 10 or more deposits.

Sports betting is a financial loser for most participants, so the money has to come from somewhere else. Baker and his coauthors found “that increases in sports betting do not coincide with decreases in participation in lotteries or other online gambling outlets like poker sites.” Instead, “betting activity crowds out financial investments, leading to a reduction in net deposits to brokerage accounts.” They estimate, “that the causal effect of $1 of online sports deposits is a reduction in net investment of just under $1.”

A 2025 paper by Brett Hollenbeck et al. used a representative panel of credit rating agency data to measure what happens in states after they legalize sports betting. This study is particularly relevant to Wisconsin because it compares states with only physical sportsbooks (“general access”) with those same states after they legalize mobile sportsbooks (“online access”).

They found that average credit scores declined by three times as much in states with online access to sportsbooks as in states with only physical ones.

A graph showing the effect of sports gambling legalization on consumer credit score

They estimated a “roughly 10% increase” in bankruptcies in states with online sportsbooks. “[T]his increase leads to. . . roughly 30,000 more bankruptcies a year.”

A graph showing the effect of sports gambling legalization on bankruptcy filing likelihood

States with online sportsbooks also saw statistically significant increases in debt collection balances.

a graph showing the effect of sports gambling legalization on collection on account amount

The authors of this study can’t tell which people in their credit data panel are bettors, so these estimates are for the entire population of states which have legalized mobile betting. The declines in credit scores and increases in bankruptcies and debts going to collection are all surely much higher among the minority of the population who is placing bets. “Assuming that sports betting does not impact financial outcomes for the non-betting population, it implies that the average effect on actual bettors is 5-10 times larger than our estimates.”

All studies seem to agree that a great deal of gambling volume is driven by a small group of problem gamblers. A 2025 paper by Wayne J. Taylor et al. used individual-level financial records to estimate that the rate of people gambling more than 1% of their income each month grew from 0.2% to 0.9% of the population following the legalization of online sports betting. “Legalization also generated spillover effects, including a 20% increase in mass-market alcohol consumption and a 75% increase in calls to gambling helplines. State tax revenues were lifted by $0.78 per capita monthly. . . due to legalization.”

Another way of measuring problem gambling is by tracking internet searches for terms related to gambling addiction. A 2025 article in JAMA Internal Medicine did this, finding a 35% increase in such searches in Illinois and a 37% increase in Michigan following the legalization of sportsbooks.

The literature shows that legalizing mobile sportsbooks increases the number of people betting. This results in worse financial health—less saving, more debt, and more bankruptcies—for a subset of problem gamblers. All these problems are exacerbated by mobile sports betting, as opposed to physical sportsbooks.

Continue ReadingWhat the Research Shows about Mobile Sports Betting

Seventh Circuit Day at Eckstein Hall “Felt Like This ‘Event’” and Offered Valuable Lessons (Part 6)

Seventh Circuit 6
Marquette law students at a question-and-answer session with Seventh Circuit judges, in Eckstein Hall’s Lubar Center, on September 25, 2025.

Did people walk a little taller at Marquette Law School on September 25, 2025? Was there more electricity in the air? Was there an almost tangible sense that something important was taking place? None of this was quantifiable, but it certainly seemed true during what became known within Eckstein Hall as Seventh Circuit Day.

“It felt like this event,” said Mariana Calvo Argus, a second-year student originally from El Paso, Texas. This sixth and final blog post in the Seventh Circuit Day series seeks to capture a bit of the feeling.

Kaya Dreger, a first-year student originally from Idaho, said, “I was super-excited.” The court’s visit furthered her interest in career paths involving advocacy in court. Observing arguments before three federal appellate judges underscored for Dreger how cases involve “real, tangible people” and how an aspect of the U.S. Constitution comes alive in proceedings such as these.

It was a very full day for four judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and for the Marquette Law School community as a whole. In the morning, the Law School’s Lubar Center was the setting for oral arguments in six cases before then-Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes, L’84, and Judges Frank H. Easterbrook and Michael B. Brennan. Judge Michael Y. Scudder joined his colleagues for programs for afternoon programs (see Part 1). The day came as Sykes was within days of finishing her term as chief judge and moving to senior status and as Brennan, another Milwaukeean, prepared to become chief judge of the Chicago-based circuit encompassing Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana.

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Day at Eckstein Hall “Felt Like This ‘Event’” and Offered Valuable Lessons (Part 6)

Climate litigation comes to Wisconsin

Wisconsin’s climate is warming. Despite its characterization in some quarters as a “climate haven” and destination for people migrating away from the worst impacts of climate change, the state is not immune to some of those same consequences. Even setting aside the significantly warming temperature here, the effects already include more frequent, intense precipitation events, increased flood risk, and decreased opportunities for winter recreation. Wisconsinites living in the southeastern part of the state will long remember the August 9-10, 2025 rainfall event that hammered some areas with over 14 inches of rain in under 24 hours, leading to widespread flooding. No doubt that was a “1,000-year storm” by reference to past experience. But when it comes to climate, the past is no longer a good guide to the future; indeed, some parts of the state have recently experienced multiple “500-year storms” or “500-year floods” within only a few years of time.

Perhaps it is no coincidence, then, that as the state increasingly feels the effects of climate change, climate law cases are similarly piling up here. From constitutional claims that seek to reform the implementation of energy law in the state, to litigation over the federal government’s efforts to claw back funding for the development of renewable energy resources, Wisconsin has become increasingly involved with legal battles over the climate. Interestingly, one of the cases prominently invokes a constitutional doctrine connected to the state’s water resources.

Dunn v. Public Service Commission. In August 2025, fifteen Wisconsin youth filed suit in the Circuit Court for Dane County alleging that certain Wisconsin statutes “create and perpetuate a fossil fuel-dominated electricity sector,” resulting in climate change-driven injuries to plaintiffs caused by air pollution, extreme weather events, and degradation of Wisconsin’s public trust (water) resources. Plaintiffs assert this amounts to a violation of the Wisconsin Constitution’s guarantees of life, liberty, and “a stable climate system.” That last phrase doesn’t appear in the constitution, but plaintiffs argue that it is inherent in the enumerated rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The case is a cousin of similar youth-led suits filed across the country, including a recent notable success in the Supreme Court of Montana.

The claims involve the work of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC), which is charged with approving the construction of new facilities that will generate electricity in the state. The Dunn plaintiffs allege that one Wisconsin statute unlawfully prohibits the PSC from considering the air pollution these proposed facilities will emit, leading to an artificial bias in favor of electricity generation from fossil fuels rather than renewable resources. A second set of challenged laws, plaintiffs allege, creates an artificial and unlawful ceiling on the amount of renewable energy generation the PSC may require energy providers to supply.

Alternatively – and particularly thought-provoking for those interested in Wisconsin water law – the plaintiffs allege that the same statutes also violate the Wisconsin public trust doctrine by depriving the plaintiffs of “the [constitutionally guaranteed] right to access, enjoy, and use public trust waters.” Over the years I have written several times in this space about the Wisconsin public trust doctrine, including its recent re-solidification after a period of erosion. In short, Wisconsin courts have interpreted Article IX, Section 1 of the state’s constitution to mean that Wisconsin holds its navigable waters in trust for its people, but the courts have had some difficulty operationalizing exactly what that duty requires in terms of day-to-day management of Wisconsin waters. The plaintiffs in Dunn argue that climate-driven damage to Wisconsin water resources enabled by the PSC’s (statutorily mandated) decisions related to electricity generation equates to a breach of the state’s constitutional public trust obligations. If a Wisconsin court accepts that framing, Dunn could become a nationally significant point of climate law evolution.

While Dunn targets the legal architecture of the state’s energy system, another pending case is focused on funding for the development of renewable energy generation in Wisconsin.

Maryland Clean Energy Center, et al. v. United States. Wisconsin (through the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, a public-private entity created in 2011 to replace the former Department of Commerce) has joined other states and organizations suing over EPA’s decision to terminate the “Solar for All” program, which is aimed at improving access to solar energy infrastructure in lower-income and disadvantaged communities. The program was slated to fund about $7 billion in solar projects; Wisconsin would have received over $60 million of that amount. The controversy involves the recent reconciliation law passed in July, which Wisconsin and the other plaintiffs argue only rescinds unobligated balances of the funding, and is not a retroactive repeal of funding already issued under the program. In a related case, EPA has called such claims “hopeless,” arguing that Congress provided reasonable grounds for getting rid of the entire program and its associated funding.

Enbridge Line 5. The Wisconsin-based dispute over the rerouting of Enbridge Line 5, an oil and gas pipeline that crosses northern Wisconsin on its way from Canada to Michigan, is another fossil fuel-related case with national relevance. Litigation over the pipeline, and the fossil fuel resources it transports, is ongoing in several different jurisdictions. In our state, the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa has challenged the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ issuance of permits approving a 41-mile new section of the pipeline, arguing that the DNR’s approval fails to comply with Wisconsin’s environmental laws and will damage wetlands and water resources, thereby threatening the Band’s way of life. The case is currently pending before a Wisconsin administrative law judge.

Though Wisconsin isn’t the first state that comes to mind in a conversation about climate risk, the outcome of these cases will be very significant to the development of climate law both within and outside the state.

Continue ReadingClimate litigation comes to Wisconsin
Newer Posts
Older Posts