In an unfolding controversy over betting limits, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) held a critical discussion to understand why and how operators set betting limits on players. However, in a surprising turn of events, only one operator, represented by Justin Black of Bally’s Interactive, engaged in the dialogue. Bally’s Interactive is licensed in the state, but it has yet to go live.
Other significant players in the industry, including BetMGM, Caesars Sportsbook, DraftKings, ESPN Bet, Fanatics Betting & Gaming, and FanDuel, requested an executive session for the roundtable discussion, citing confidentiality concerns. Their request was declined by the Massachusetts regulator, adhering strictly to the state’s open-meeting law. The absence of these key operators did not go unnoticed, with commissioners expressing their frustration openly.
Interim Chair Jordan Maynard emphasized the necessity for transparency and integrity, even if it leads to uncomfortable situations. “We are required by an open-meeting law to have discussions in public, and that can be uncomfortable,” Maynard stated. “But integrity and transparency are of paramount importance.”
Commissioner Brad Hill was more candid about his sentiments. “I’ll go so far as to say I am angered by the lack of information we were able to obtain. Today’s discussion didn’t give us the starting point we were hoping for,” Hill expressed.
Massachusetts is pioneering this regulatory path as the first U.S. state to publicly discuss the issue of betting limits. Currently, 41 states and jurisdictions across the United States offer legal, live sports betting, highlighting the significance of Massachusetts’ initiative.
The MGC’s session included insights from professional bettor Jack Andrews, responsible gaming consultant Brianne Doura-Schawohl, and consultant Dustin Gouker. Doura-Schawohl recounted an incident in Washington, DC, where a player was limited under the guise of responsible gaming concerns, which was later revealed as a cover story.
. She also cited Australia’s approach of responding to similar concerns by implementing bet minimums.
Andrews shared his experience, noting that bettors often remain unaware of maximum and minimum betting limits on Massachusetts platforms until their bets are rejected. He recounted an instance in New Jersey where DraftKings limited his account within three weeks, despite him being down by $600 at the time. According to Andrews, conversations with DraftKings traders revealed that betting patterns, like his penchant for second-inning lines in baseball, led them to restrict his account, suspecting his expertise.
The impetus for this roundtable discussion originated from the MGC receiving numerous complaints from consumers about account limitations following wins. Players reported their accounts being limited without any explanation, prompting the commission to seek clarity. Interim Chair Maynard articulated that the goal is to comprehend why players are limited and how this information is conveyed to them.
Letters from impacted players further highlighted the issue. Bettor Dave Connelly, for example, shared correspondence from four operators in Connecticut, including a letter from Fanatics stating, “We are not able to provide any additional information about why these changes have been made to your account.”
Bettors from Iowa, Ohio, and Virginia also voiced their frustrations, expressing relief that Massachusetts is addressing the issue. They reported being “severely” limited by multiple sportsbooks, underscoring the need for regulatory scrutiny.
Among the actionable insights from the meeting was the suggestion to expand the market to smaller, less restrictive operators. Andrews pointed out that some smaller operators offer fewer markets and peer-to-peer or exchange wagering, along with higher limits. However, these operators face entry barriers in Massachusetts, such as the 20% tax rate and high licensing fees.
Gouker proposed creating a second tier of licenses for smaller or unique operators as a possible solution. He clarified that while the MGC itself cannot initiate new license types, such changes would require legislative action.
As Massachusetts regulators navigate these complexities, the session underscored the urgency for clearer, more transparent practices in the sports betting industry, aiming to protect both operators and bettors alike. The absence of major operators from the discussion highlights a significant gap in dialogue that the commission will need to bridge to move forward effectively.
