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 Bio
Massachusetts gaming regulators are moving toward what they call a first-of-its-kind rule that would require the state’s licensed sportsbooks to notify users when and why they have limited the users’ wagering activity.
At a public meeting on December 18, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) voted unanimously to initiate the regulatory process for a proposal aimed at increasing transparency in sportsbook bettor limitations.
The vote follows months of discussion by MGC, including an earlier meeting in September. Then, the commission first raised concerns about sportsbooks limiting practices and the lack of disclosure to bettors.
Two Regulatory Options, One Clear Preference
The limiting issue stems from that September 2025 discussion. Then, commissioners asked whether sportsbooks should do more than silently restrict accounts.
Legal staff ultimately presented two options:
- Option A: Procedures to provide timely notice to a patron that their wagering activity has been limited.
- Option B: Procedures to provide timely notice to a patron that their wagering activity has been limited. In addition, it includes a specific explanation for the attachment of the limit(s) and identification as to which market(s) are so limited.
The commission advanced Option B. As interim general counsel Justin Stempeck explained, Option B would require operators to provide “procedures to provide timely notice to a patron that their wagering activity has been limited, including a specific explanation for the attachment of the limits and identification as to which markets are so limited.”
The commissioners made it clear that notice alone was insufficient.
Commissioner Brad Hill said he initially leaned toward a lighter approach. However, he changed his view: “At the very least, we need to let the folks know why they’re being limited… I don’t see why we wouldn’t take that extra step.”
Commissioner Paul Brodeur agreed. He argued that unexplained limits only increase confusion and mistrust: “Just providing notice begs the question… it’s full disclosure and transparency.”
Transparency, Fairness & Broader Regulatory Philosophy
Several commissioners framed the proposal as part of a broader consumer protection philosophy — not just a narrow sports betting issue.
Commissioner Nikishha Skinner emphasized transparency as the baseline expectation: “Option B for me all the way… transparency is the goal here.”
Commissioner Eileen O’Brien described the issue as one of equity between operators and players: “It’s not just transparency, it’s also fundamental fairness.”
That framing aligns with the commission’s broader concerns about rapid expansion across the U.S. Earlier this year, Chair Jordan Maynard cautioned that the national market risks becoming a “highway without speed limits“ if consumer protections fail to keep up with innovation.
At the meeting, Maynard emphasized that Massachusetts is deliberately entering new regulatory territory: “We are the first jurisdiction in the United States to take up this issue and to continue to study this issue.”
He also pushed back on operator concerns about regulatory burden: “The operators keep telling me they’re not limiting many people… if they’re not limiting many people, they should be able to tell people why they’re limiting them.”
Vote Sends Rule to Public Comment
Following the discussion, Hill moved to formally advance the draft regulation to public comment. That authorized staff to file the required documentation with the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
The motion passed 5–0.
The rule is not yet final. Operators, bettors, and other stakeholders will have an opportunity to submit comments before the commission considers adoption.
Part of a Wider National Debate
Massachusetts’ move comes amid a broader national debate over bettors’ limits.
In New York, lawmakers have floated significantly stronger measures. One proposal would prohibit sportsbooks from limiting or banning customers solely because they are winning. The measure still allows restrictions tied to fraud prevention, integrity concerns, or responsible gambling safeguards.
A separate New York bill introduced earlier this year would also expand sportsbook obligations. It requires clearer disclosures, enhanced consumer protections, and stricter oversight of operator practices across the market.
If finalized, the Massachusetts rule would still make the state the first U.S. jurisdiction to require sportsbooks to explain bettor limits, potentially setting a regulatory benchmark for other states, including New York.
