College Campus Geofencing: Why US Sportsbooks Face a Harder Challenge Than State Lines

US sportsbooks face a new geofencing challenge that is considerably more complicated than drawing a digital line around a state: the push to block mobile sports betting on college campuses. Multiple states have moved to require sportsbooks to implement campus-level geofencing, but the technical, legal and practical challenges of confining exclusion zones to campus property boundaries are proving substantially more difficult than state-line enforcement, particularly at urban universities where campus and public space are interwoven.

What Campus Geofencing Would Require

New York State Senator Andrew Gounardes introduced Senate Bill S10470, which would prohibit online sports betting operators and platform providers from accepting wagers from users physically located on college campuses. If passed, sportsbooks would need to comply by August 1, 2027. Under the bill, colleges would be required to supply geographic data and campus boundary information to the New York State Gaming Commission (NYSGC) to support geofencing implementation. The proposal currently sits before the Senate Racing, Gaming, and Wagering Committee and has not been scheduled for a hearing. A similar bill in Maryland failed in 2024, with Towson University stating that enforcing geofencing restrictions across campuses was "not technically feasible."

Pennsylvania has introduced a bill to geofence K-12 schools. Tennessee considered a campus betting ban that did not become law. The push reflects National Council on Problem Gambling data finding that individuals aged 18 to 24 experience problem gambling rates two to three times higher than the general population.

Why Campus Geofencing Is Harder Than State-Line Enforcement

GeoComply, the primary geofencing provider for US licensed sports betting operators, has demonstrated its ability to enforce granular exclusion zones, including shielding approximately a thousand parcels of federal land in Washington DC from betting activity. Rural and self-contained campuses such as Cornell or Syracuse present relatively manageable geofencing challenges. The problem is urban universities. A campus like NYU in Manhattan spans multiple blocks intertwined with public roads, restaurants, hospitals, student housing, private businesses and mixed-use buildings. The map of what is technically campus and what is not changes constantly as universities acquire and dispose of property.

Douglas Mishkin, a partner at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner and former senior vice president of legal and business affairs at Metric Gaming, told Gambling Insider the core problem: "You are cutting down the problem to an extent, but you are not solving it altogether. A student could just cross the street." He also warned that campus restrictions could push students toward offshore platforms or prediction markets where consumer protections are absent, potentially making the problem worse rather than better.

The VPN Problem and Behavioral Workarounds

Modern geolocation systems use multiple verification methods beyond IP addresses, including cell tower triangulation, Wi-Fi connections, Bluetooth data and HTML5 browser location information. GeoComply conducts more than 350 individual checks per location verification. Even so, VPNs and location spoofing remain available workarounds. A University of Tennessee student told the university's student newspaper that a similar ban on a foreign social media platform had not affected their usage at all because VPN workarounds were readily available. The practical enforcement gap between what a campus geofencing rule requires on paper and what it achieves on the ground is significant.

Alternative Approaches to Student Gambling Protection

Mishkin and other compliance experts argue that campus-level exclusion zones may be less effective than user-level protections such as age-specific deposit or wager limits for individuals identified as college-aged or in the 18 to 24 demographic. Such limits would travel with the user regardless of physical location, addressing the problem wherever a student actually places bets rather than only when they happen to be on campus. Operators would likely resist account-level restrictions targeting students on grounds of discrimination by enrollment status, but the policy debate is shifting in that direction.

New York lawmakers are separately pursuing monthly account activity statements for sportsbook users, enhanced fraud monitoring requirements and proposed limits on AI-driven personalized sportsbook promotions as supplementary consumer protection measures, alongside the campus geofencing bill.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the New York college campus sports betting bill?

Senate Bill S10470, introduced by Senator Andrew Gounardes, would prohibit online sports betting from being placed on college campuses in New York, requiring sportsbooks to implement geofencing based on campus boundary data supplied by the universities. It has a proposed compliance deadline of August 1, 2027, and is currently in committee.

Why is campus geofencing technically difficult?

Urban campuses are intertwined with public roads, private businesses, hospitals and residential buildings, making it technically difficult to draw a precise boundary that blocks betting within campus but not on a public sidewalk right outside. Rural and isolated campuses are more manageable but urban universities like NYU in Manhattan present significant enforcement challenges.

Have any states already implemented campus betting bans?

No US state has successfully implemented and enforced a campus-level sports betting geofencing regime. Similar bills in Maryland in 2024 failed after Towson University called geofencing enforcement "not technically feasible." Tennessee considered a campus ban that did not become law. Pennsylvania has introduced a K-12 school geofencing bill.