Chavdar Vasilev is a journalist covering the casino and sports betting market sectors for CasinoBeats. He joined CasinoBeats in May 2025 and reports on industry-shaping stories across the US and beyond, including legislative debates, market...
Read Full BioA bill legalizing online casinos in Massachusetts received its first hearing by the Joint Committee on Economic Development & Emerging Technologies on November 13. Supporters framed it as a means to curb illegal gambling and raise tax revenue. Meanwhile, opponents claimed, it would cannibalize retail casinos, increase gambling addiction, and outlaw social gaming.
HB 4431, sponsored by Rep. David Muradian, would create Chapter 23O of the Massachusetts General Laws. It would grant the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) full regulatory authority over internet gaming, impose a 15% tax on adjusted gross revenue, and limit licensure to existing casino operators.
The measure includes strict advertising limits, responsible gaming requirements, AI-based monitoring, and a ban on the use of biometric data. It also outlaws sweepstakes casinos.
Supporters Emphasize Illegal Gambling & Market Demand
Rep. Muradian opened the hearing by framing the bill as a direct response to illegal gambling. He described HB 4431 as a necessary effort to regulate an online market already active in Massachusetts. He pointed to widespread offshore play and argued that a transparent, licensed framework would better protect consumers.
Industry testimony reinforced that point. John Pappas of the iDevelopment and Economic Association (iDEA) cited GeoComply analysis showing that there are over 250,000 monthly searches for online casinos and poker in Massachusetts. That has resulted in 1.2 million monthly visits to illegal online casino platforms.
Pappas further stated that illegal operators are aggressively advertising to state residents and that many consumers are unaware that they are using illicit sites.
Pappas also told lawmakers that iGaming does not cannibalize brick-and-mortar casinos, saying states with legal online casinos have seen revenues rise “dramatically.”
Rebecca London, Senior Government Affairs Manager at DraftKings, noted that Massachusetts could outperform other iGaming states due to its robust sports betting and lottery markets.
She cited Vixio modeling, showing $170 million to $200 million in annual tax revenue. London added that iGaming is already happening in Massachusetts, just outside the regulated market.
Opposition Raises Job-Loss Projections — and Tough Questions From Lawmakers
Labor groups urged lawmakers to consider the potential impacts on the workforce. The Hotel & Hospitality Workers Union testified that legal iGaming would eliminate 862 gaming jobs and 2,786 supporting jobs statewide.
The estimation comes from an Innovation Group study, finding that from 2019 to 2024:
- States with iGaming experienced a 4% decline in brick-and-mortar casino revenue
- States without iGaming recorded a 12% increase
The committee members also raised challenging questions. Rep. Adam Scanlon pressed the HB 4431 presenters on whether they know how much iGaming revenue would come from individuals with gambling problems.
Scanlon also pushed back on the argument that legalization is justified because illegal gambling already exists. He compared that reasoning to saying, “Should we apply that same argument for legalizing drugs such as heroin?” Pappas rejected the argument, saying Massachusetts has already identified gambling as a form of entertainment.
Chair Rep. Carole Fiola questioned whether legalizing iGaming would meaningfully reduce the illegal offshore market. She asked whether a regulated alternative would truly “make a dent” or simply coexist alongside unlicensed platforms.
The exchanges highlighted a central theme of the hearing: lawmakers want verifiable, quantitative evidence about market displacement, job impacts, and the scale of problem-gambling risks before advancing the bill.
Sweepstakes Mentioned Among Broader Concerns
Among those testifying against HB 4431 was the Social Gaming Leadership Alliance (SGLA). Managing Director Sean Ostrow argued against criminalization and urged regulation of its newly rebranded model of “Social Plus” gaming.
Ostrow instead urged lawmakers to regulate the model, which could bring over $30 million annually to Massachusetts.
Debate Amid Broader Statewide Gambling Scrutiny
The November 13 hearing included multiple bills regarding gambling, many of which aimed to curb already available types. That includes Sen. John Keenan’s SB 302, which would ban prop and in-play bets. At the same time, the proposal calls for raising sports betting taxes to 51%.
The bill follows an increased scrutiny of gambling in the state. On the same day, the MGC warned licensed sportsbooks about participating in federally regulated prediction markets.
The regulator recently also required licensees to notify customers whose bets are being limited.
Together, these actions reflected a heightened statewide focus on consumer protection and enforcement capacity.
What Comes Next
HB 4431 faces a December 17 reporting deadline, although the committee may extend it under House Rule 27.
The testimony revealed a strong interest in regulating offshore gambling but also significant concern around job loss, conflicting revenue modeling, and unquantified risks related to problem gambling.
It’s important to note that HB 4431 is not the only online-casino measure being discussed this session. A prior hearing in June explored similar licensing frameworks and revenue models. However, the companion bills have not gained much traction since then.
