Opinion: New Hampshire Must Kill Senate Bill 112 and Protect Free Market Competition in the Gaming Business

Senate Bill 112 needs to die. The bill, which would put a moratorium in place on the issuance of new gaming licenses in New Hampshire, would effectively prevent any new entry into the casino gaming business, curbing competition and giving an advantage to existing operators who won’t have to compete against new innovations and improved customer experience that could come from a new entrant into the market.

The proponents of Senate Bill 112 [SB 112] say that the moratorium is needed because of market saturation. If that’s a valid reason to prevent a new business from opening in New Hampshire, then they ought to also enact a law that puts a moratorium on the opening of any new Dunkin’ Donuts in New Hampshire, since there are over 220 Dunkin’ Donuts locations in the State compared to just 14 operators of casino gaming.

In a natural business cycle, new entrants will come into the market and those already in the market have to adapt to stay competitive. By preventing this competition, the consumer suffers. What gives consumers power is choice, and SB 112 would limit this choice. SB 112 is not just a regular barrier to entry in the gaming business in New Hampshire like burdensome regulation or high licensing costs, it’s an insurmountable barrier.

According to economic experts, “barriers to entry benefit incumbent firms because they protect their revenues and profits and prevent others from stealing market share.” It’s no wonder that the New Hampshire Charitable Gaming Operators Association, a lobbyist group for the existing casino gaming operators in New Hampshire, are supporting SB 112. Less competition means they won’t need to invest as much into providing better offerings, services, and amenities, and it means they can probably command a higher margin. That means that players in New Hampshire’s casinos will lose more money playing in New Hampshire, while having an inferior experience.

For poker players, SB 112 means there could be fewer places to play poker because New Hampshire requires a casino gaming license for poker rooms. A new poker room couldn’t open to compete against the existing rooms if SB 112 passes.

New Hampshire’s elected officials need to look out for the interests of the consumer over the interests of those who would be enriched by the government curbing competition in the casino gaming sector. They should vote against SB 112.

--Matt Soleyn, Chief Player Advocate, Poker Uncensored