1. Consumer Protection
2. Public Health

The bill should be supported because it aims to reduce gambling-related harm by ensuring gamblers are continuously informed about their financial activities, thereby promoting responsible gambling behaviors. By making real-time activity statements readily accessible, users can make more informed decisions about their gambling habits. This transparency aligns with consumer protection principles, providing individuals with the necessary information to safeguard their financial and mental well-being [Judgment]. Additionally, by reducing problem gambling, the bill contributes to improved public health outcomes, mitigating issues such as financial hardship, mental health problems, and family disruption, which are often associated with gambling addiction.

1. Propertarianism
2. Value-Neutral / Epistemic Objection

The bill should be opposed because it imposes additional regulatory burdens on gambling service providers, potentially stifling innovation and increasing operational costs. These costs might be passed on to consumers, ultimately reducing market competition and consumer choice. While the bill aims to protect gamblers, it might infringe on individual autonomy by presupposing that consumers cannot make informed decisions about their activities without constant oversight [Judgment]. Furthermore, the compliance costs associated with displaying real-time information could particularly affect smaller operators, potentially reducing their ability to compete with larger entities in the market.