Betting in Massachusetts

In its first year, Massachusetts issued more public warnings, hearings, and penalties for operator mistakes than most states do in five. Compliance hearings became routine - covering early registration issues, line-posting errors, promotional infractions, and violations of advertising rules. The MGC made it clear: this is not a “learn as you go” market.

For bettors, this heavy enforcement builds stability. Operators clean up errors fast, lines stay consistent, and the market rarely faces the chaos seen in states with looser oversight. It’s structured to a fault, but that structure generally benefits the player.

The state taxes online sportsbook revenue at 20%, a notch above mid-range markets like Virginia (15%) and far above low-tax markets like Iowa (6.75%) or Colorado (10%). It’s not exactly punitive - Massachusetts isn’t New York (51%) or Pennsylvania (36%) - but it’s high enough to alter how operators compete.

For players, that shows up at the margins: fewer splashy promotions, tighter long-term pricing, and less willingness from operators to burn cash to buy market share.

Massachusetts bans wagering on in-state college teams unless they’re playing in an officially sanctioned tournament (like March Madness). That removes a major chunk of the betting menu in a state with intense college loyalty and strong regional programs.

For bettors, that creates a noticeable gap. You can bet on Duke, Alabama, or USC all day long, but not Boston College on a Saturday afternoon unless they’re in postseason play. It’s one of the strictest college policies in the country and one that permanently limits handle compared to states without in-state restrictions.

In order to bet on in-state college teams, bettors need to resort to prediction markets or social sportsbooks.

Massachusetts has not legalized iGaming of any kind. Multiple bills have been floated, but none have gained real traction, and the MGC has shown little appetite for expanding into online casino regulation in the near term.

For bettors, that leaves a significant gap in the online experience compared to states like New Jersey, Michigan, or Pennsylvania. Anyone looking for casino-style play has to rely on Social Casinos -alternative formats operating under federal sweepstakes law, not state gambling law.

With no legal iGaming and a controlled sportsbook market, sweepstakes platforms provide the broadest legal alternative for Massachusetts players. These sites use dual-currency, prize-based systems governed by federal sweepstakes law rather than state gaming licenses. They aren’t traditional casinos or sportsbooks - but they are fully lawful.

For players, the benefit is access. You can’t play real-money online slots or blackjack through state-regulated operators, but you can participate in sweepstakes-based versions of those games for redeemable cash prizes. It’s the only compliant online casino-style option available in the state.

Massachusetts was one of the first states to formally regulate daily fantasy sports, creating a structured framework back in 2016 that still anchors the market today. DraftKings (founded in Boston), FanDuel, and other major platforms operate traditional DFS contests openly and without ambiguity.

Pick ’Em operators never left the state, but they did have to change. When regulators made it clear that “vs. the house” prop-card products drifted too close to sports betting, operators adjusted by shifting into peer-based or pooled fantasy models that rely on skill rather than house-backed outcomes.

Like most regulated states, Massachusetts prohibits sportsbooks from offering wagers on political elections, award shows, and non-sporting outcomes. The MGC has been especially strict on this point, routinely blocking any attempt to introduce non-sport markets.

But prediction markets, which operate under federal commodities law, don’t fall under that restriction. Bay Staters can legally trade on elections, economic events, cultural outcomes, and other real-world indicators - all categories the sportsbooks can’t touch.