Massachusetts lawmakers are again weighing whether to bring online casino gaming into the state’s regulated market, reviving an iGaming debate that has followed the Commonwealth for years.

A public hearing was scheduled on two companion proposals, House Bill 332 and Senate Bill 235, that would authorize internet casino games and place oversight with the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.

The bills outline a market tied to the state’s three casinos, plus a limited set of licenses for standalone operators. They also direct regulators to write rules on advertising, consumer protections, and responsible gambling tools, making the details central to the policy fight.

 The Bills in Play: Two companion proposals with the same destination

The proposals were filed in the 2025 session by Sen. Paul Feeney and Rep. Daniel Cahill and referred to the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure. The bills envision a new legal chapter for internet gaming, alongside existing statutes for casinos and sports wagering.

A committee calendar set the first hearing for June 23, 2025, as reported by BonusFinder, bringing the issue into the open even as other gambling-related measures competed for floor time and attention. Bills can also stay alive through deadline extensions, which can stretch debate into the next year without forcing a quick vote.

Category 1 licenses would connect iGaming to the state’s three casinos

The framework ties the first set of online licenses to existing brick-and-mortar properties, a model commonly used in states that already allow iGaming.

In Massachusetts, Encore Boston Harbor, MGM Springfield, and Plainridge Park would be eligible for Category 1 licenses and would sit at the center of the market design.

Each Category 1 licensee could operate as many as two internet gaming platforms, creating room for multiple brands and partnerships. The bill text also indicates platforms would not have to be branded or co-branded with the casino, which could matter for operators that prefer one national identity.

Untethered Category 2 licenses would be capped

The bills also create Category 2 licenses for entities that do not hold an existing casino license in Massachusetts, opening a pathway for operators without a local retail footprint.

Category 2 licenses would be limited to four. Combined with the six casino-linked platforms possible under Category 1, that cap would set the market ceiling at as many as ten online casino brands. The limit is designed to allow competition without turning the market into an open-ended licensing race.

How Massachusetts fits into a seven-state iGaming map

As of 2026, only seven states operate fully regulated online casino markets, keeping iGaming far less common than mobile sports betting.

Massachusetts sits near jurisdictions where online casinos are already legal, including Connecticut and Rhode Island, which advocates cited as evidence that regulation is workable.

Opponents pointed to the same convenience factor as a risk, arguing that expanded access can change play patterns and increase the need for prevention and treatment resources.

Fees, taxes, and the revenue argument

The proposals include an initial license fee and a dedicated tax rate on adjusted gross internet gaming receipts. Industry coverage around the bills described a $5 million license fee for a five-year term and a 20 percent tax rate, figures that would be among the key levers in any compromise.

Supporters argued that legalization would capture activity already occurring on offshore sites, shifting play into a supervised environment with identity checks, deposit controls, and reporting requirements. Coverage by BonusFinder framed the bills as an effort to replace illegal play with regulated, taxed offerings.

Opponents questioned how much revenue would be new versus shifted from retail casinos, and whether online products could erode in-person gambling taxes and jobs tied to physical properties.

Regulators Would Be Asked to Build Guardrails

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission would regulate internet gaming, including licensing, enforcement, and ongoing oversight of platform operations.

The bills direct the commission to write advertising and consumer-protection rules, including restrictions on misleading marketing, limits on promotions aimed at anyone under 21, and requirements for responsible gaming plans and account controls. They also call for visible problem gambling resources, the option to close accounts, and limits on certain practices, such as providing lines of credit.

Massachusetts Gaming Commission chair Jordan Maynard has described the broader U.S. gambling market as “a highway without guardrails,” a phrase cited in arguments for stronger protections.

Live Dealer Studios and Interstate Agreements Are Built into the Text

The proposals describe live dealer games that stream from a physical studio to a player’s device, thereby explicitly bringing that format under the state’s regulatory umbrella.

They also authorize reciprocal internet gaming agreements, a provision that could allow multi-jurisdictional activity, such as shared online poker pools, subject to commission approval.

The language is often read as a potential pathway to the Multi-State Internet Gaming Agreement, though joining any compact would remain a separate regulatory and political decision.

Testimony Highlighted a Familiar Split

Supporters leaned on a channelization argument, saying online casino play is already available to Massachusetts residents, just outside state control. They said a regulated market would allow stronger enforcement around age checks, self-exclusion, and responsible gaming tools.

“Online casino gaming is already happening in Massachusetts, just not in a legal, regulated, or taxed environment,” DraftKings Government Affairs Manager David Prestwood told lawmakers.

FanDuel’s James Hartman pointed to the scale of unregulated play and argued that illegal operators take money the state cannot monitor or tax.

Critics focused on addiction risk and cannibalization concerns. Problem gambling expert Brianne Doura-Schawohl urged legislators to weigh the policy “with eyes wide open.”

The unresolved question remains whether a regulated market would primarily replace illegal play or widen gambling access in ways that increase harm and pressure on existing casinos.

Lawmakers did not take an immediate vote following the hearing, leaving the proposals in committee for continued review.

Tracking later showed House Bill 332’s reporting deadline extended into 2026, signaling that the debate remained active but unsettled as the session calendar turned.