Massachusetts Weighs Online Casino Legalization in Heated Hearing

A Contentious Debate Unfolds

The packed session, held at the State House, saw industry giants like DraftKings and FanDuel push for the bills, while unions and anti-gambling advocates raised alarms about job losses and addiction risks.

With the legislative session running until November 19, the debate is far from over, but the outcome could reshape the state’s $2 billion gaming industry.

David Prestwood of DraftKings told the committee that iGaming could generate $230 to $275 million in annual tax revenue at a proposed 20% rate, creating jobs and curbing the $7 billion black market James Hartmann of FanDuel estimated thrives in Massachusetts.

“Residents are already gambling on illegal platforms,” Hartmann said, stressing that regulated iGaming would bring age verification and responsible gaming tools.

John Pappas of the iGaming Development and Economic Association added that legalizing online casinos could support up to 20 operators, boosting competition and state coffers.

Opposition Raises Red Flags

Opponents painted a darker picture. Jamie McNeil of Local 26 Hospitality Workers’ Union warned that iGaming could eliminate 862 casino jobs and nearly 2,800 supporting roles, citing New Jersey’s 17% casino job drop despite a 395% iGaming revenue surge from 2019 to 2024.

Brianne Doura-Schawohl, a problem gambling expert, called iGaming “the fast food of gambling,” noting that in Connecticut, 70% of online casino revenue comes from just 7% of players, many with addiction issues. She pegged Massachusetts’ potential social costs at $315 million annually.

Mark Stewart of the National Association Against iGaming predicted a 15-30% hit to brick-and-mortar casino revenue, rejecting claims that iGaming boosts land-based growth.

The bills propose granting each of the state’s three casinos: Encore Boston Harbor, MGM Springfield, and Plainridge Park, two online skins, plus four independent licenses, with a $5 million fee for five years.

Notably, casino representatives were absent from the hearing. Sources suggest MGM and PENN support iGaming due to their online brands, while Wynn, which shuttered WynnBet, may oppose it.

Jordan Maynard, chair of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, urged prioritizing consumer safety over profits, likening the industry to “a highway without speed limits” where regulators must install “seatbelt dingers.”

Broader Context and Next Steps

The hearing also covered horse racing bills, which drew more public input, with residents voicing stronger interest in tracks than iGaming. The lack of grassroots support for online casinos could complicate the bills’ path, as could opposition from unions and anti-gambling groups, which stalled similar efforts in states like New York.

Zach Khan of the Sports Betting Alliance argued that iGaming complements physical casinos, citing a 2% growth boost in other states, but skeptics like McNeil remain unconvinced, pointing to Atlantic City’s struggles.

With no vote taken, the committee will analyze testimony and data before the November deadline. The bills’ fate hinges on balancing economic gains against social risks, with the Gaming Commission ready to regulate if passed.