House lawmakers on Monday drew a line on gaming expansion, dumping a bill that creates a framework for internet gaming into a dead-end study and causing its sponsor to start thinking about trying again next session.
House members of the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies voted 11-0 to send the bill (H 4431) to study. Rebecca London, a senior government affairs manager at DraftKings, said at a hearing in November that the bill could generate $170 million to $200 million in annual revenue for the state.
Committee co-chair Representative Carole Fiola of Fall River voted to send the bill to study and was joined by eight other Democrats and Republicans Representatives Marcus Vaughn of Wrentham and Michael Soter of Bellingham.
Representative David Muradian’s legislation has stirred a lot of debate and remains on the “most popular bills” list on the Legislature’s website. A Grafton Republican, he told State House News Service Monday that his bill had sparked “much-needed conversation” and that he plans to refile it for the 2027-2028 session.
“The momentum H4431 created this session will hopefully serve as a springboard to future economic growth in Massachusetts, while always focusing on consumer protections and safeguards,” Muradian said.
Bill supporters say it would bring consumer protections that are lacking at illegal internet gambling sites already being used by residents. The bill “brings internet gaming out of the shadows into a safe, transparent, and accountable system regulated by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission,” Muradian said a November hearing. He said neighboring Rhode Island and Connecticut have established iGaming.
“This is not an expansion of gambling for its own sake. It’s an expansion of accountability. It’s about taking activity that is already happening and making it safe, transparent, and beneficial to our state and, most importantly, our residents,” Muradian said during the hearing. “This bill reflects what Massachusetts has always done, thoughtful, responsible regulation that protects consumers, fosters innovation and ensures fairness.”
Opponents of iGaming warned it could cannibalize the state’s existing casinos and raised concerns about its potential effects on gambling addiction. Those same arguments were ineffective at stopping the state’s push to embrace casinos, sports betting, and more recently internet gaming sponsored by the Massachusetts Lottery.
Treasurer Deb Goldberg, who chairs the Lottery Commission, opposed iGaming, noting it would compete with the launch of the iLottery that is planned for this summer. The games offered are very similar, but she said iGaming operators would have a greater ability to advertise to users and offer incentives for playing.
“We won’t be able to compete in terms of advertising,” Goldberg said in December. “So I, right now, am firmly against iGaming. They may not like me for that, but I gotta think about the people of Massachusetts, and that’s my top priority.”
Muradian’s legislation would legalize online casino gambling including digital slot machines and blackjack, and make the new licenses available to the casinos already operating in Massachusetts. Plainridge Park Casino in Plainville, MGM Springfield, and Encore Boston Harbor in Everett would each be able to launch three online gaming brands or “skins.” Regulation would fall to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, which already regulates the state’s casinos, horse racing, and sports betting.
It would also require players to be 21 years old or older, physically located in Massachusetts and “verified through secure technology,” Muradian said during the hearing. There are also deposit limits and operators would be required to monitor for signs of problem gaming and connect players to resources for help. Operators would be required to pay a 15 percent state tax on their gross revenue from internet gaming.
Representative Kenneth Sweezey, a Plymouth Republican, opted out of voting yes or no on advancing the bill and Rep. Greg Schwartz, a Newton Democrat, did not vote on the bill.