Massachusetts Weighs Casino Expansion and Betting Limits

The debate centered on regulating an expanding online market versus protecting the public from increased addiction risks.

The iGaming Legalization Case

The main expansion bill, House Bill 4431 sponsored by Representative David K. Muradian Jr., was the focus of the iGaming discussion. Proponents argued the state should regulate a market that already exists illegally.

Rep. Muradian stated that residents are already gambling on unregulated offshore platforms because the state cannot “legislate morality.” Legalization would move this activity into a safe, transparent system with consumer protections.

John Pappas, a gambling consultant, provided data on the scale of the illegal market. He testified that state residents conduct over 250,000 monthly searches for online casino content. This results in about 1.2 million visits to illegal siteseach month.

Rebecca London from DraftKings added that legalizing iGaming could generate a conservative estimate of $170 million to $200 million annually in tax revenue. The bill proposes a 15% tax on gross internet gaming revenue. These funds would support education, local aid, and responsible gambling programs. Proponents also cited Pennsylvania as proof that online casinos do not harm land-based casino revenue.

Moral and Financial Objections

Opponents focused on the moral hazards and potential for increased addiction. Former state legislator David Nangle, who is a recovering compulsive gambler, urged the committee, “Don’t turn every cellphone in Massachusetts into a casino.” He argued the state should not profit from human weakness.

The National Association Against iGaming (NAAiG) warned that the state’s problem gambling helpline saw a 200% surge in calls since sports betting launched. The group also predicted that land-based casino revenue in Massachusetts would suffer a 16% cannibalization if iGaming is approved.

Calls for Stronger Sports Betting Guardrails

A second major focus of the hearing involved proposals to tighten the rules on the state’s recently launched sports betting system.

Senator John Keenan, sponsor of Senate Bill 302 (The Bettor Health Act), expressed regret for his past vote to legalize sports betting. He stated, “I want to publicly apologize to those who find themselves in the dark spaces of betting addiction.”

The senator’s bill proposes widespread reforms aimed at consumer protection and game integrity. The most notable changes include a complete ban on prop bets (wagers on individual player statistics) and in-play (live) bets. These specific bet types have been tied to recent integrity scandals in other major sports leagues.

S. 302 would also raise the sports betting tax rate from 20% to 51% and would ban all sports betting advertising during game broadcasts. These restrictions aim to curb the industry’s pervasive marketing reach.

Youth and Advertising Concerns

The hearing included testimony about the impact of widespread sports betting advertising on young people. Angel Benitez, a 17-year-old high school student, surveyed his peers and found that 82 out of 90 students knew someone their age who had gambled. He testified that “Gambling ads are everywhere, which promotes and gives motivation to teenagers like me to get into gambling.”

Marlene Warner of the Massachusetts Council on Gaming and Health and Mark Gottlieb of the Public Health Advocacy Institute supported the reform bill. Gottlieb called S. 302 “the single best example” of legislation to address how sports gambling has become an “extremely addictive product, largely targeting young people.”

Other Gaming Measures and Next Steps

The committee also reviewed other proposals. These included bills to protect Category 2 casinos, like Plainridge Park, by allowing them to host more table games and slot machines. Representative Jeffrey Roy argued these changes are necessary to protect jobs and revenue from “concerted challenge” by Rhode Island casinos.

The committee took no action on any of the bills presented. Lawmakers will accept written testimony until November 20. The committee is expected to decide in the coming weeks whether any of the proposals will advance for a full legislative vote.