Massachusetts is reigniting the conversation surrounding the legalization of online casino gaming. A crucial hearing is set for June 23, where lawmakers will revisit two proposals that have long remained stagnant—House Bill 332 and Senate Bill 235.

Both legislative proposals advocate for a structured regulatory system that would enable internet-based casino operations with oversight from the state. The new regulations aim to implement the Massachusetts Internet Gaming Act, which assigns regulatory duties to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC).

This legislative framework introduces two distinct licensing categories: Category 1 licenses would permit the three current casinos in the state to collaborate with a maximum of two online platforms each. In contrast, four Category 2 licenses would be allocated to independent online operators without ties to physical casinos.

Licenses would be issued for five years, with an application fee of $5 million, applicable for both initial and renewal phases. A provisional license, valid for one year and costing $1 million, would also be available during the application process. Operators would incur a tax rate of 20% on gross gaming revenue—a figure that mirrors that imposed on online sportsbooks and is lower than the 25% tax allocated to retail casinos.

Additionally, the legislative package includes essential consumer protection measures, such as statewide options for self-exclusion, Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols, anti-money laundering measures, and regulations against misleading advertising. A mandatory 1-800-GAMBLER banner will be required across all operators’ platforms, who will also need to submit annual responsible gaming plans and provide staff training.

A provision to permit out-of-state live dealer studios and facilitate interstate gaming agreements could position Massachusetts to join the Multi-State Internet Gaming Agreement, which includes states such as New Jersey, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

Despite advances in legalization efforts, support is not unanimous. Advocates highlight the potential for increased tax revenue and job growth within the tech sector, especially given that neighboring states like Rhode Island and Connecticut have begun offering iGaming options. Critics, however, caution against possible detrimental effects on existing brick-and-mortar casinos.

The ongoing discourse is also linked to broader national regulatory issues. Jordan Maynard, Chair of the MGC, who has pushed for more stringent oversight, has suggested the establishment of a federal self-exclusion registry alongside uniform regulations. He has raised concerns about whether technology used to enhance customer engagement could also aid in promoting responsible gambling behaviors.

Historically, Massachusetts has adopted a cautious approach to gambling legislation, with online sports betting only receiving approval after the legalization of retail casinos.

Considering comparable delays in the launch of the state’s online lottery, the full rollout of online casinos may remain uncertain in the short term, even if legislative progress continues into 2025.