PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Jun 17, 1999
Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999 - Amends the Federal criminal code to make it unlawful for any person engaged in a gambling business to knowingly use the Internet or any other interactive computer service (service) to: (1) place, receive, or otherwise make a bet or wager; or (2) send, receive, or invite information assisting in the placing of a bet or wager. Prescribes penalties. Grants the district courts original and exclusive jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this Act. Authorizes the United States or a State attorney general to institute such proceedings. Provides enforcement authority for violations taking place on Indian lands. Exempts from liability under this Act any service provider who, after being properly notified by a Federal or State law enforcement agency that a particular online site of such provider is being used to violate this Act, removes or disables access to such site. Requires a provider, in order to receive such immunity, to: (1) maintain an electronic or written policy that requires the provider to terminate the account of a violating subscriber following receipt of a notice of violation; and (2) not knowingly permit its service to be used for such prohibited purposes. Authorizes alternative injunctive relief against such a provider, under certain limitations and considerations. Exempts from liability a provider who takes any action required under this Act. States that nothing in this Act shall otherwise require a provider: (1) to monitor material or use of its service; or (2) except as required by notice, to gain access to, remove, or disable access to material. Lists exceptions to the prohibitions under this Act, including certain State and multi-State lotteries and authorized horse or dog racing. Directs the Attorney General to submit to Congress: (1) an analysis of the problems associated with enforcing this Act; (2) recommendations for the best use of Department of Justice resources for enforcement; and (3) an estimate of the amount of activity and money being used to gamble on the Internet.
People & committees
Sen. Kyl, Jon [R-AZ] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S14863-14870)
By Senator Hatch from Committee on Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 106-121. Additional views filed.
By Senator Hatch from Committee on Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 106-121. Additional views filed.
Committee on Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 158.
Committee on Judiciary. Reported to Senate by Senator Hatch with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Judiciary. Reported to Senate by Senator Hatch with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 106-112.
Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, Government. Approved for full committee consideration with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3144-3146)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. 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 S.692 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 S.692 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 S.692 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 S.692 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.