The Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) voted Thursday to require sports betting operators to notify bettors when their accounts are subject to limits. Under the proposal, operators would likely also be required to explain the reason for the limitation and identify the affected betting markets.
MGC Votes on New Rules
If adopted, the MGC would become the first regulator in the United States to require operators to disclose betting limits to customers. Currently, operators in all jurisdictions are permitted to limit bettors without providing notice.
Two updates to the Rule 235 CMR 238.30 were suggested for discussion:
“Option A: (11) Procedures to provide timely notice to a patron that their wagering activity has been limited.
Option B: (11) Procedures to provide timely notice to a patron that their wagering activity has been limited, including a specific explanation for the attachment of the limit(s), and identification as to which market(s) are so limited.”
The commissioners held a minimal discussion on the matter and unanimously selected Option B. The draft rule does not specify the types or levels of limits that operators may impose. Any proposal ultimately adopted would be added as a new subsection to the existing regulation.
Next, the MGC will open a 21-day public comment period, file the proposed amendment with the Secretary of State, and publish a public notice. The MGC will also hold an in-person public hearing before its legal division drafts final regulatory language. The process is expected to conclude in the first quarter of 2026.
Officials Comment on the New Legislation
Chair Jordan Maynard said Massachusetts is the first jurisdiction to address the issue, noting that while the topic was challenging, it ultimately serves the interests of residents and patrons of the Commonwealth. He added that operators have frequently claimed they limit only a small number of bettors, and if that is the case, they should be able to explain why limits are imposed when they occur.
Commissioner Brad Hill said he has long believed that, at a minimum, bettors should be informed of the reason their accounts are being limited. He questioned why the commission would not take that additional step if notice is already being required, and said he does not view the requirement as burdensome for operators.
Meanwhile, Commissioner Paul Brodeur said that simply notifying bettors of a limitation without further explanation would likely prompt additional questions and fail to satisfy patrons. He argued that full disclosure and transparency, including providing detailed information, is a more sensible approach.
Commissioners Nakisha Skinner and Eileen O’Brien indicated that Option B may still fall short of their expectations. Maynard also raised the possibility of implementing stricter requirements in the future.
While Massachusetts is considering more rules and regulations for the traditional gambling industry, it seems that these projects still pale in comparison to the strict stance that the state has taken against prediction markets.
Earlier this month, for example, Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Christopher Barry-Smith questioned whether prediction market platforms should be allowed to operate legally in Massachusetts, becoming yet another expert to stand in the way of the expansion of companies like Kalshi.