Tennessee lawmakers are moving to strengthen protections for public higher education by targeting areas where mobile sports betting can operate. House Bill 1768 (HB 1768), filed on January 20, 2026, by Representative John Clemmons (D–Nashville), would require interactive sports wagering operators to restrict access to defined campus areas associated with public institutions of higher education.
The mandate is designed to reduce betting exposure among young adults and, critically, to limit pressure on student-athletes in an “always-on” wagering environment where outcomes (and individual player props) can be wagered in real time. If enacted by the 114th General Assembly, the measure is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026.
While HB 1768 is framed as an access-control bill, the market signal is broader. Tennessee is treating college-linked betting harm as an operational risk that must be mitigated with enforceable technical controls. The policy logic aligns with widely reported industry concerns that wagering outcomes, especially prop-driven volatility, can amplify fan hostility and direct harassment of athletes when bets lose, pushing player safety from a “responsible gaming” talking point into a compliance deliverable.
For investors and compliance teams, the key takeaway is that Tennessee is not merely adjusting consumer messaging, as it is tightening the physical and network perimeter around betting availability. That approach maps to a 2026-era enforcement trend that regulators increasingly expect operators and partners to demonstrate how protections work, not just that they exist.
The bill emphasizes the financial and psychological risks that gambling presents to young adults, in addition to harassment. In line with professional research on online gambling psychology and iGaming market dynamics highlighted by the Times Of Casino, lawmakers believe that regular exposure to mobile betting on college campuses can increase stress and risky behavior.
HB 1768’s definitions matter because they expand “campus” beyond a simple map pin. The bill defines “campus” as the geographical boundaries of a primary contiguous campus property, plus non-contiguous parcels or satellite facilities within one mile of any boundary when used for student residential or communal purposes, while excluding facilities used solely for the following:
The bill also extends beyond campus borders to capture sports venues used for sanctioned collegiate or athletic events. This includes even those venues that are not located on campus, regardless of ownership. This creates a compliance scope that follows the event, not just the institution’s real estate footprint.
Most notably, the restriction is not limited to game time. For sports venues used for sanctioned events, the licensee must prohibit access to interactive sports wagering for the entire calendar day on which the event is conducted, effectively a 24-hour blackout on event days.
HB 1768 splits responsibility across the ecosystem. On the operator side, a “licensee” would be required to prohibit access to interactive sports wagering on covered campuses and event venues.
On the institution side, any public institution of higher education that provides internet access to students, faculty, staff, or the public would be required to block access to interactive sports wagering on campus through any server, hard-wired, or wireless network maintained or operated by the institution, a direct compliance obligation for campus IT and network vendors.
For gaming tech suppliers, this is a procurement signal: geofencing accuracy, network-level blocking, audit logs, and policy enforcement tooling may shift from “nice-to-have” to baseline requirements in public-sector education environments.
Rather than a blunt statewide prohibition on college betting, Tennessee is testing a targeted policy model, restricting wagering by location (geofenced enclaves and network blocks) tied to public institutions and sanctioned events. If HB 1768 advances, it will serve as a bellwether for other mobile-heavy jurisdictions. It will evaluate whether perimeter-based controls can meaningfully separate collegiate athletics from commercial sports betting without expanding blanket bans.
