The Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) recently convened a roundtable discussion aiming to shed light on why and how sports betting operators impose betting limits on players—a crucial facet of responsible gambling. However, the dialogue hit a significant roadblock due to the absence of key industry representatives. Only Justin Black from Bally’s Interactive, a platform licensed but not yet operational in Massachusetts, attended the meeting to address the concerns.
In stark contrast, representatives from some of the biggest names in the sports betting industry—BetMGM, Caesars Sportsbook, DraftKings, ESPN Bet, Fanatics Betting & Gaming, and FanDuel—requested the discussions be moved to an executive session, citing confidentiality concerns. The Massachusetts regulator denied this request, leaving these major players absent from the critical conversation.
The commissioners expressed visible frustration and disappointment over the operators’ unwillingness to engage in a public discussion. Interim Chair Jordan Maynard underscored the regulator’s obligation to hold open meetings as mandated by state law. He remarked that transparency and integrity, although sometimes uncomfortable, are of paramount importance.
Commissioner Brad Hill didn’t mince words in venting his frustrations about the lack of cooperation. “I’ll go so far as to say anger that I have today for not being able to get more information that I thought we would be able to get to start this conversation,” said Hill. “Although it was started today, it didn’t give us the starting point that I had hoped we would get.”
Massachusetts has taken a pioneering step as the first state to delve into the murky waters of regulating betting limits. So far, 41 U.S. states and jurisdictions offer legal, live sports betting, but discussions around betting limits have been minimal.
The MGC also welcomed insights from professional bettor Jack Andrews, problem and responsible gaming consultant Brianne Doura-Schawohl, and consultant Dustin Gouker. Doura-Schawohl highlighted an instance from Washington, DC, where a player was limited under the guise of responsible gaming concerns. Upon deeper investigation, however, it became clear this reason was somewhat of a cover story. As a point of comparison, she mentioned that Australian regulators had moved to implement bet minimums to address similar issues.
.
Andrews provided essential insights about the betting environment in Massachusetts and beyond. He pointed out that neither maximum nor minimum bets are posted on sports betting platforms in the state. Bettors typically discover their limitations only when a placed bet is rejected. Andrews shared a personal anecdote about being limited by DraftKings in New Jersey after just three weeks of activity, during which he was down $600. His limitation came after discussions with DraftKings traders who noticed his pattern of betting on second-inning baseball lines. They inferred that his specialized wagers indicated a higher understanding of the game, which spurred them to cut off his action.
The roundtable was sparked by a flood of complaints from consumers whose accounts had been limited without clear explanations following successful wagers. The MGC received numerous letters illustrating this trend. What Commissioner Maynard seeks is a deeper understanding of the criteria operators use to limit players, and how this information is communicated back to the customers.
For example, a letter from bettor Dave Connelly indicated a severe lack of transparency from operators. Connelly shared a screen capture of a response from Fanatics when he queried why his account was limited: “We are not able to provide any additional information about why these changes have been made to your account.”
Similarly, letters from bettors in Iowa, Ohio, and Virginia described being “severely” limited across multiple sportsbooks and conveyed their approval of Massachusetts’ efforts to tackle the issue.
One of the most practical suggestions to come out of the session came from Andrews and Gouker, who proposed expanding the market to include smaller, less restrictive operators. Andrews elucidated that smaller operators often offer higher limits, fewer markets, and innovative options like peer-to-peer or exchange wagering. Nonetheless, these operators are effectively barred from Massachusetts due to high entry barriers, specifically citing the state’s 20% tax rate and hefty licensing fees.
Gouker proposed the notion of creating a secondary tier of licenses specifically for smaller or unique operators to facilitate their entry into the market. However, implementing such a change would require an act from the state legislature, as the MGC alone lacks the authority to establish new license categories.
The meeting concluded on a cautious note with MGC commissioners pondering the next steps in grappling with betting limit regulations, urging for greater transparency and collaboration from the sports betting industry moving forward.
