As more states move to block credit cards from gambling, the policy sounds straightforward. Cut off borrowed money, reduce harm. In practice, the results are mixed. The rules change how people pay, but they don’t always change why they gamble or how they manage their money.
Ashley Morgan, a debt and bankruptcy attorney in Virginia, sees the gaps up close. She questions whether limiting a single payment option can do much when people can shift funds in minutes.
“Not being able to use credit cards on gambling apps may help reduce credit card debt for a few people,” she told ReadWrite, “but many people will just use their credit cards for their other expenses.” In everyday life, that can mean using a debit card to place bets while quietly leaning on credit for rent, groceries, or utilities.
Not being able to use credit cards on gambling apps may help reduce credit card debt for a few people, but many people will just use their credit cards for their other expenses. Once the debt is in cash form, it is easy to use those funds to gamble.
Ashley Morgan,
Morgan says some people go a step further. They take out personal loans or pull cash advances, turning credit into spendable cash before they ever open a betting app. “Once the debt is in cash form, it is easy to use those funds to gamble,” Morgan adds.
She also points to a lesser-discussed pressure point, i.e. taxes. Recent changes to federal rules mean gamblers can no longer fully offset winnings with losses, which can leave people owing more than they expect. “The tax issues with gambling are likely to keep getting worse,” she says. “Previously, you could zero out any winnings by your losses… but now winnings are only offset by up to 90%.” For frequent bettors, that can translate into taxes on money they didn’t actually keep, adding another layer of financial strain even as access to credit tightens.
Credit card bans create workarounds as gambling rules tighten
What Morgan describes shows how quickly behavior adjusts. When one door closes, another often opens, especially in a system where money moves instantly between accounts.
Restrictions still have an effect, just not always the one lawmakers expect. Instead of stopping gambling, they often change how people organize their finances around it.
When players are restricted to debit or bank-based methods, their spending becomes better aligned with available cash, which thus adds a natural restraint.
E.J. Simonsen, EIDLexit Founder and Business FInance Advisor
Adding to the conversation, E.J. Simonsen, a business finance advisor and founder of EIDLexit, says those changes can still matter. Even small barriers can influence decisions in the moment.
“Restricting credit cards is one way to mitigate a particular risk of gambling with borrowed money,” he explains. He points to a simple difference. Paying with a debit card or bank transfer forces people to look at what they actually have.
That awareness can slow things down. “Their spending becomes better aligned with available cash, which thus adds a natural restraint.”
For some users, that pause is enough to rethink a bet. For others, it just shifts where the money comes from.
States set new limits on borrowing for bets
Lawmakers are starting to act on the idea that limiting access to borrowed funds can reduce the most damaging behavior.
Maine has already adopted a strict rule. Under House Bill 2080, bettors cannot use credit cards for sports wagering or online casino play. Operators must enforce the ban across mobile apps and physical locations.
Illinois is considering a similar move. House Bill 4149 would block credit card deposits and also stop cash advances at casino ATMs, closing a common path people use to get around restrictions. Even Ohio has announced equivalent measures.
These initiatives reflect a shared concern. Easy access to high-interest credit at the moment of betting can deepen losses quickly. Removing that option may not stop gambling, but it can limit how fast debt builds.
The industry has already begun to adjust. DraftKings and FanDuel have scaled back credit card deposits in several markets. BetMGM has taken similar steps in certain states.
Credit card payments carry risks for operators, including fraud and chargebacks. Disputed transactions can create headaches for companies and customers alike.
As a result, the funding mix is shifting. Debit cards, ACH transfers, and digital wallets now handle most deposits, nudging users toward spending money they already have access to, rather than money they owe.
Behavior shifts more than outcomes change
So do these bans actually reduce harm? The answer depends on what you measure.
If the goal is to eliminate problem gambling or erase debt tied to betting, the evidence suggests that’s unlikely. People who want to gamble often find another way to fund it.
If the goal is narrower, the picture looks different. Blocking credit cards at the point of play removes a fast, easy way to gamble with borrowed money, often at steep interest rates.
That can alter how decisions are made. A bettor who has to move money from a bank account or think about a balance may hesitate, even briefly. Sometimes that hesitation matters.
As Simonsen puts it, the goal is not to eliminate risk entirely, but to reintroduce limits into a fast-moving digital market: “When players are restricted to debit or bank-based methods, their spending becomes better aligned with available cash.”
Morgan keeps her focus on the bigger issue. As long as financial stress and gambling habits remain in place, she expects people to keep finding workarounds.
Featured image: Canva