Massachusetts is the first state to approve two measures that force sports betting operators to inform a bettor that they’ve been limited and why their wagers are being capped in certain markets.
Photo By – Imagn Images.
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) became the first state regulator to approve two measures that force sports betting operators to inform a bettor that they’ve been limited and why their wagers are being capped in certain markets.
Key Takeaways
- Massachusetts regulators were unanimous in discussions about changing how operators handle limiting bettors.
- The commission has been having these discussions for more than a year.
- DraftKings was denied a request to avoid paying out over $900K because of a configuration error.
The Bay State commission unanimously voted 5-0 to pass the legislation during a Thursday meeting. The measures are required to go before public comment before being fully adopted.
“I think this is a good thing for the citizens and patrons of the Commonwealth,” MGC Chair Jordan Maynard said. “I’m an enthusiastic yes.”
Enjoying Covers content? Add us as a preferred source on your Google account 
No debate
There was no discussion from the commission members of not accepting the proposal to make operators come clean on betting limitations. All were in favor of not just having sportsbooks tell customers they were being limited, but also providing reasons for the move.
Commissioner Nakisha Skinner, who initially asked the question that sparked the movement on this topic last year, questioned whether this requirement is enough.
“Transparency is the goal here,” Skinner said. “And I think to get full transparency, at the very least, you have the information that this proposed legislation calls for, made absolutely clear to patrons.”
Maynard said he looks forward to continuing this discussion after the public comment period is complete. He added that the MGC “stay on top of this,” and receive data next year to “see if anything we did here moved the needle in a positive direction.”
Looking into limitations
The MGC began inquiring about operators limiting bettors in 2024, and regulators called for a roundtable discussion with the online sportsbooks to discuss the matter. However, they didn’t attend the meeting.
A second roundtable was eventually held, and operators argued that they use limitations to protect themselves from bad actors and to mitigate risk. Bettors in Massachusetts reached out to the MGC after feeling they had been unjustly limited because they were winners.
“Right from the very start of this conversation that started many months ago, I’ve always been of the feeling that at the very least, we need to let the folks know why they’re being limited,” Commissioner Brad Hill said. “I don’t think this is a hard thing to do for the operators to help with the consumer.”
The MGC’s staff conducted a study and found that 0.64% of accounts in Massachusetts were being limited from December 2024 to September 2025. Nearly 58% of those customers were allowed to wager 1% to 24% of the default bet amount.
“If they’re not limiting many people, they should be able to tell people why they’re limited and explain when they’re going to get off the limitation, when they’re coming on,” Maynard said on Thursday.
DraftKings denied
In other MGC business on Thursday, the regulatory body unanimously voted to deny a request from DraftKings Sportsbook to void paying out $934,137 to a single bettor who the operator claims took advantage of an error.
DraftKings claimed a trader accidentally allowed the Massachusetts customer to string together total hit wagers by Toronto Blue Jays player Nathan Lukes during the American League Championship Series. A configuration error made Lukes a “non-participant” and allowed the bettor to tie Lukes’ correlated hit for the series into parlays that were also combined with high NFL and college football moneylines.
DraftKings argued in Thursday’s MGC meeting that the customer was engaging in fraud and unethical behavior, but the commission held the operator responsible for the mistake. A similar ruling was upheld by New Jersey regulators, while Pennsylvania ruled in DraftKings’ favor.
