PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5] · R–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: May 8, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1552 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1552 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1552 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1552 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-25 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill would prohibit betting businesses from accepting wagers on whether a college athlete performs a particular action or achieves something during a covered college sporting event. The prohibition would apply whether or not that action affects the game's final result. It would regulate businesses accepting these bets, and the Federal Trade Commission would enforce it using its consumer-protection authority.
No individual or entity engaged in the business of betting or wagering may accept any bet or wager that includes a covered prop bet.
The term covered prop bet means a bet or wager on the occurrence or non-occurrence, with respect to an intercollegiate sporting event, of an action or achievement by a student athlete that may or may not have a direct bearing on the final result of any such sporting event.
The Federal Trade Commission shall enforce this section in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this section.
Section 1 would give the bill the short title “PROTECT Student Athletes Act.”
This Act may be cited as the Providing Responsible Oversight and Transparency and Ensuring Collegiate Trust for Student Athletes Act or the PROTECT Student Athletes Act.
Section 2 states Congress's rationale for the proposal: sports betting crosses state lines, and regulating bets involving student athletes is intended to protect their welfare. These are proposed congressional findings, not evidence that the bill would achieve those results.
Congress finds the following:
Sports betting activities are conducted across State lines by various means, including online platforms and physical betting establishments, that involve participants from multiple States.
Ensuring the welfare of student athletes is a national concern and regulation of betting practices, particularly those involving the performance of student athletes, is essential to safeguard the integrity, well-being, and educational environments of such athletes.
Section 3 would prohibit anyone in the betting business from accepting any wager that includes a covered proposition bet—a bet on whether a student athlete performs an action or achieves something in a covered event. The definition includes actions that do not affect the event's final result.
No individual or entity engaged in the business of betting or wagering may accept any bet or wager that includes a covered prop bet.
The term covered prop bet means a bet or wager on the occurrence or non-occurrence, with respect to an intercollegiate sporting event, of an action or achievement by a student athlete that may or may not have a direct bearing on the final result of any such sporting event.
Coverage would depend on the event: it must be played at the college level, with athlete eligibility requirements established by a national association that promotes or regulates college athletics. A student athlete would mean any individual participating in such an event.
The term intercollegiate sporting event means a sporting event played at the collegiate level for which eligibility requirements for participation by a student athlete are established by a national association for the promotion or regulation of college athletics.
The term student athlete means an individual who engages in any intercollegiate sporting event.
A violation would be treated as breaking a Federal Trade Commission rule against unfair or deceptive business practices.
A violation of this section shall be treated as a violation of a regulation under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)) regarding unfair or deceptive acts or practices.
The Federal Trade Commission would be required to enforce the prohibition using the authority and procedures of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Violators would face that law's penalties and retain its legal protections and immunities.
The Federal Trade Commission shall enforce this section in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this section.
Any person who violates this section shall be subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated May 8, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 25, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-05-08T12:20:54Z. 2025-02-25: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2025-02-25: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-25. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish attachment history or the contents of other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents of other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Protection of the policy's intended population alone does not establish such a benefit. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: May 8, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI