News writer, Interviewer
Colorado's Lottery wants to go digital. Some state senators want to stop it. The fight reached the Senate Finance Committee last week, and what came out wasn't just about credit cards.
Senate Bill 117 cleared committee on a razor-thin 5-4 vote. The bill would ban credit card purchases for lottery tickets, block the lottery from launching its own online app, and prohibit courier services that buy tickets on behalf of customers. But the debate exposed something bigger: a state agency quietly expanding its power, and collecting player data, with no legislative sign-off.
A commission that moved fast
In November 2025, the Colorado Lottery Commission held a rulemaking hearing. It approved two major changes: credit card purchases and a new mobile app called iLottery. No legislative vote. No public referendum.
Four of the senators who voted against SB 117 had previously signed a letter objecting to those exact changes. Their "no" votes weren't a defense of credit cards. They believed the bill went too far.
Co-sponsor Sen. Jeff Bridges called the commission's move unconstitutional. He framed iLottery as a gambling product built using the same algorithm-driven techniques that fuel sports betting addiction. Bridges called it the largest expansion in state history.
Sen. Kyle Mullica pressed Colorado Lottery senior director Tom Seaver directly: more online players means more people losing money. Seaver stated:
"The idea is to keep up with what consumers want."
The unanswered data question
The digital platform is supposed to track player behavior. The state lottery plans to collect spending data to identify problem gamblers and push educational content through the app.
What wasn't revealed: how players would be told their data is being collected, who holds that data, who can access it, and whether it can be sold or shared.
The lottery's player health manager described the platform as enabling "evidence-based player protections" — deposit limits, behavioral monitoring, and real-time spending displays. Seaver added that a player information database would be used to "create the best opportunities for players to play."
A third-party vendor would build the technology. The Colorado Lottery says it will oversee all key decisions. The committee allegedly never got a straight answer about data ownership or disclosure requirements.
Addiction, debt, and young men
Co-sponsor of the bill, Sen. Judy Amabile, cited her concern for a specific demographic: young men. She believes they are the most vulnerable to app-based gaming, worrying that it could lead to financial straits.
Peggy Brown, a problem gambling advocate with more than 20 years in the field, testified that roughly 14% of lottery players experience gambling-related harm. Any expansion that increases that risk must go through the legislature, she argued.
Oliver Barie of the National Association Against iGaming made the comparison hard to ignore: states are restricting minors' access to social media over addiction concerns. Yet some would put a 24/7 gambling app on the same device.
Mullica pushed Seaver on coupons and incentives designed to draw new players. Seaver said the lottery would "selectively encourage" sampling. That answer didn't satisfy the committee.
What about retailers?
Mary Szarmach runs 59 gas stations across Colorado. She claims her stores don't earn enough in commissions to absorb credit card processing fees. She worries credit cards would eat half her profits.
On the other side, outdoor recreation groups testified in favor of the expansion. Lottery proceeds fund state parks and Great Outdoors Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife told the committee that lottery revenue makes up 15% of its budget, among its most stable sources.
That's the bind. More digital players likely means more revenue for parks. It could also mean more people in debt.
Where the bill stands
SB 117 heads next to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Two of its own co-sponsors have reservations. Sen. Janice Marchman admitted she signed on before fully reading the bill. She voted "yes for now." The committee chair said his concern is with credit cards and not the rest of the provisions.
Gov. Jared Polis's administration has opposed the measure. A veto is possible.
An amendment removing lottery courier services from the bill was accepted during the hearing. One courier, the state's largest lottery ticket seller, doesn't accept credit cards anyway.
The core dispute remains: did the Lottery Commission overstep? And if the state is going to run a 24/7 gambling app that might track user behavior, shouldn't the legislature — and voters — have a say?
Comments