Self-Exclusion Programs Across US States Fail to Work Across Sportsbook Platforms and State Lines, Leaving Problem Gamblers Unprotected

When problem gamblers self-exclude in one US state, the exclusion typically applies only to licensed operators in that specific state and often only to the specific platform, meaning a person can self-exclude from DraftKings in New Jersey but continue betting on FanDuel in New Jersey or on DraftKings in Pennsylvania. There is no national self-exclusion registry despite sports betting being legal in 38+ states. Why it matters: problem gamblers who summon the willpower to self-exclude discover the process must be repeated dozens of times across different operators and states, so the friction of re-enrolling in each new jurisdiction effectively punishes the person trying to get help, so many simply give up and continue gambling on platforms not covered by their partial exclusion, so the self-exclusion system functions as regulatory theater that gives lawmakers cover without delivering meaningful consumer protection, so the actual rate of harm reduction from self-exclusion programs remains unmeasurable because the system is designed in fragments rather than as a unified safety net. The structural root cause is that US gambling regulation is state-by-state with no federal coordination mechanism, and operators have no commercial incentive to build interoperable exclusion systems because every self-excluded customer represents lost revenue, so the collective action problem remains unsolved.