Massachusetts has a unique political leaning towards Europe, which is reflected in its higher taxes, higher spending, and dynastic family power transfers. The state’s resemblance to European markets extends to its approach to regulating sports betting.
Massachusetts has differentiated itself from other US states by adopting a different stance on sports betting. Initially, there was a proposal to ban all promotions, but a more lenient approach by the House prevailed. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission intends to impose stricter regulations compared to other US regulators.
The Commission has placed specific conditions on online operators’ licenses, requiring them to make improvements in certain areas. For instance, Penn Entertainment’s Barstool sportsbook had to undergo discussions about its brand and founder, as well as make changes to its marketing activities, including the discontinuation of the term “risk-free.”
Similarly, BetMGM has been asked to provide timely updates on confidential investigations in other jurisdictions, given questions raised about its co-owner Entain’s regulatory settlement in Great Britain. Fanatics also had to enhance its responsible gambling plan for license approval.
Massachusetts is subjecting operators to heightened scrutiny, resembling the approach seen in European markets. This can be viewed positively as it ensures compliance and responsible gambling measures. However, it may also be viewed negatively as excessive regulations could stifle the industry.
There is a consensus that the US sector may face a backlash akin to Europe. Therefore, Massachusetts is viewed as a necessary evil. Increased regulations, professional regulatory bodies, and media scrutiny are expected across the country. Operators should be prepared for Massachusetts-like approaches becoming more common.
Massachusetts can also have an impact beyond the US by influencing changes in operator behavior in other markets. If the regulator questions operators about their association with unlicensed gambling in other jurisdictions, it may set a precedent. This could push operators to choose between accessing “dark grey” markets or the lucrative US market.
Massachusetts Gaming Commission’s strict scrutiny is not limited to sports betting. It has previously investigated Steve Wynn and Wynn Resorts, resulting in a substantial fine. The Commission’s inclination towards scrutiny applies to the entire industry.
While regulatory scrutiny is not unique to Massachusetts, the state is taking it to a new level. It is not going against the tide but rather leading the way in implementing stricter regulations that were already emerging in the US market. This makes Massachusetts an important state in shaping the industry’s future.
Currently, Massachusetts may seem like an inconvenient market due to its stringent regulations. However, it has thus far avoided extreme measures, adopting a reasonable approach. Its influence may actually benefit the industry as other states eventually follow suit and apply similar levels of scrutiny.
