The Massachusetts Gaming Commission took a significant regulatory step Thursday, December 18, by approving a proposal that would require licensed sports betting operators to notify patrons when their wagering activity has been limited and to explain the reasons behind those limits. If finalized, the rule would make Massachusetts the first U.S. jurisdiction to formally mandate such disclosures, reshaping how sportsbooks communicate with customers whose betting activity is restricted.

Commissioners voted unanimously to move the proposed regulation forward for public comment, beginning a formal rulemaking process that is expected to extend into early 2026. The change would amend existing sports wagering rules and introduce new obligations for operators, without prescribing the size or duration of any limits imposed.

Commission Backs Disclosure and Explanations for Limits

During the meeting, commission staff presented two alternative approaches for revising Rule 235 CMR 238.30. One option would have required sportsbooks to simply inform patrons that their wagering activity had been limited. The second option went further, calling for notice that also includes the specific reason for the limitation and identification of the affected betting markets.

Commissioners leaned quickly toward the more detailed approach and voted 5-0 to advance it. The approved language reads: “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.”

Jordan Maynard, chair of the commission, emphasized that Massachusetts is breaking new ground by addressing an issue that has largely gone unregulated nationwide.

“We are the first jurisdiction to take up this issue,” Maynard said. “This was not an easy topic to take on, but it’s a good thing for the citizens and patrons of the Commonwealth.”

Commissioners repeatedly framed the proposal as a transparency measure rather than an attempt to restrict sportsbooks’ risk management practices.

“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 see why we wouldn’t take that extra step if we’re going to tell you that you’re being limited. And I don’t really think that this is a hard thing to do for the operators.”

Commissioner Paul Brodeur echoed that view, questioning whether notice alone would satisfy affected bettors. “Just providing notice is going to beg the question, right?” Brodeur said. “I’m not sure that is going to satisfy any patron. Full disclosure and transparency, providing that additional information, makes sense.”

Long Review Process Behind the Proposal

The commission’s action followed more than 18 months of study and discussion. Concerns about bettor limitations first reached regulators in July 2023, when a member of the public raised questions about sportsbooks restricting customers who win consistently.

In response, the commission sought dialogue with operators. An initial roundtable scheduled for May 2024 saw no participation from active Massachusetts sportsbooks, drawing criticism from regulators. A second roundtable held in September 2024 included representatives from all licensed operators, who argued that limiting bettors is a risk management tool used sparingly.

To test those claims, the commission requested data from its seven licensed sportsbooks. The analysis showed that from December 2024 through September 2025, just 0.64% of Massachusetts sports betting accounts were subject to some form of limitation. Nearly 58% of those accounts could still wager between 1% and 24% of the default bet amount.

“If they’re not limiting many people, they should be able to tell people why they’re limiting them,” Maynard said during the meeting, as reported by InGame.

Some commissioners suggested the new rule may only be an initial step. Nakisha Skinner said transparency must be meaningful to patrons.

“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.”

Eileen O’Brien described the regulation as a starting point and raised broader fairness concerns for customers who are limited without explanation.

Enforcement Actions Add Context to Meeting

The commission’s discussion on limitations took place alongside other enforcement matters that highlighted its consumer protection role. Caesars Sportsbook disclosed that it had mistakenly allowed credit card-funded wagers in Massachusetts, where such funding is prohibited. Between October 15 and 28, Caesars accepted 88 wagers from 35 patrons totaling $1,256.07.

Although the commission’s Investigations Enforcement Bureau said the issue stemmed from a software update and was corrected, commissioners opted to schedule an adjudicatory hearing rather than issue a fine immediately. Maynard referenced prior enforcement actions when explaining the decision.

“We levied the harshest penalty in the United States on this issue,” he said, referring to a $450,000 fine imposed on DraftKings earlier this year for repeated credit card violations.

DraftKings also appeared before the commission seeking to void wagers tied to a technical error during Major League Baseball’s American League Championship Series. A configuration mistake allowed a bettor to place 27 parlays involving correlated markets on Toronto Blue Jays player Nathan Lukes at inflated odds, resulting in a potential payout of $934,147.83.

DraftKings argued the bettor exploited the error. Pete Harrington, speaking for the company, said, “They took purposeful efforts to evade our controls, they engaged in repeat betting, they placed 27 wagers with the correlating markets.”

Commissioners declined to allow the wagers to be voided, citing the operator’s responsibility to prevent errors before markets go live and a lack of sufficient information to justify the request.