BetMGM prohibits credit card transactions after Pennsylvania fine

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2026/02/13: FanDuel announces ban on credit card deposits 2025/12/03: Australia’s credit card betting ban found to have had limited effect on heavy gamblers 2025/08/01: Massachusetts regulator fines DraftKings US$450,000 for accepting credit card wagers 2026/01/26: Maine considers credit card ban for online sports bets

The Backstory

Why credit cards are vanishing from U.S. sportsbooks

Major operators have been moving away from credit card deposits as regulators step up enforcement and lawmakers look to curb gambling on borrowed money. The trend accelerated over the past year as platform compliance missteps drew costly penalties and politicians demanded tighter safeguards. While the industry frames some changes as operational decisions, the backstory shows a tightening ring of legal risk, reputational pressure and fraud exposure that is reshaping how bettors fund their accounts.

FanDuel and DraftKings set the early pace. FanDuel said this year it would remove credit cards across its U.S. sportsbook, casino and racing products after a months-long review, a pivot disclosed in a statement to USA Today and detailed in coverage of FanDuel’s ban on credit card deposits. DraftKings had already turned off the option in August 2024, citing transaction costs, according to the same report. Those moves, initially framed as business decisions, soon intersected with a broader crackdown on credit-funded wagering in key states.

Massachusetts puts operators on notice

Regulatory pressure sharpened in Massachusetts, where the state barred credit card use when legal sports betting launched in 2023. DraftKings later faced the largest sports betting fine issued by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission for taking credit card-funded wagers despite the ban. The commission tallied 1,160 impermissible wagers tied to 242 deposits by 218 customers, for a total handle of $83,667.92. Details of the case and the $450,000 penalty were outlined in reporting on the DraftKings fine, with additional context from NBC Boston’s account of the enforcement action and the commission’s final noncompliance decision.

The Massachusetts case sent a clear message to operators: internal controls must match state-level payment prohibitions from day one, and remediation must be thorough. DraftKings was ordered to repay affected customers and hire an auditor to ensure no additional credit card funds were used during a specified window at launch. The episode also reinforced that state-level rules can vary significantly, requiring operators to maintain highly localized compliance systems across dozens of jurisdictions.

Political heat before the Super Bowl

As regulators acted, elected officials applied pressure. Ahead of the Super Bowl, Sen. Elizabeth Warren pressed FanDuel to explain its credit card policy and the potential for consumers to rack up debt and incur “junk fees.” Her letter to FanDuel cited estimates that roughly a quarter of American bettors used credit cards, some facing steep fees on top of losses. FanDuel’s subsequent move to drop credit cards prompted Warren to publicly urge other platforms to follow. She amplified the call on social media after the announcement, as noted in her post and summarized in coverage of FanDuel’s policy change.

The political calculus is straightforward: few policymakers want voters to spiral into debt on a discretionary activity that is expanding rapidly and advertising heavily. For operators, the reputational risk of being out of step with a high-profile consumer protection push—especially around major events—has grown alongside the risk of formal enforcement.

States tighten rules and close loopholes

Eight of the 32 states that allow online sports betting already prohibit credit card transactions. More are lining up. In Maine, lawmakers advanced a measure to ban credit card use for online sports bets as part of a broader push to mitigate gambling harm. The proposal, Legislative Document 2080, would block credit cards and debit cards linked to borrowing. Sponsor Rep. Marc Malon argues the change keeps people from gambling beyond their means. The rationale and legislative path were detailed in reporting on Maine’s proposed ban, with additional background available in the bill summary and local news coverage from WGME.

State efforts reflect two overlapping concerns: consumer protection and fraud. Credit-funded wagers can entrench losses into debt, and payment rails tied to credit may complicate chargeback risk and identity verification. Operators have been called out for weak Know Your Customer processes and monitoring that allow rings to exploit payment methods and promo systems. Those vulnerabilities are costly when regulators impose penalties or require customer restitution, and they fuel the policy case for tighter payment controls.

What global experiments suggest

International moves add caution to expectations that payment bans alone will curb risky behavior. In Australia, a nationwide prohibition on credit card funding for online wagering in 2024 showed limited impact on the heaviest gamblers, who largely shifted to bank transaction accounts, according to new analysis summarized in reporting on Australia’s credit card ban. Researchers found reductions were mostly among casual bettors deterred by inconvenience. Loopholes such as cash advances, PayPal deposits and personal loans remained available, although heavy gamblers reportedly did not need to rely on them.

New Zealand plans to bake a credit card ban into its upcoming online casino licensing regime, part of a package that includes tax changes and community returns. The government’s concession aims to build legislative support while signaling a consumer-protection stance in a market it wants to formalize by late 2026. The policy trade-offs and operator concerns about license attractiveness were outlined in reporting on New Zealand’s proposal.

The lesson for U.S. regulators and operators: payment bans can be a necessary guardrail but not a panacea. Without robust identity checks, transaction monitoring and limits on alternative credit-like funding, determined bettors may simply reroute deposits. Policy packages that combine payment rules with self-exclusion tools, affordability checks and marketing restraints tend to deliver more durable impact.

The stakes for operators and bettors

For operators, the shift away from credit cards narrows payment choice but reduces compliance exposure, fraud losses and chargeback headaches. It also brings them closer to a likely end state as more states adopt consistent prohibitions. For bettors, the near-term impact is friction: funding via debit, bank transfer or e-wallets instead of revolving credit. Over time, the question is whether that friction changes behavior or simply redistributes how money moves into sportsbooks.

As more states scrutinize payments and as political attention holds, sportsbooks face a familiar U.S. challenge: harmonizing operations across a patchwork of rules while preparing for tougher enforcement. The companies that align early—with clear audits, strong KYC and conservative payment stacks—are positioned to avoid penalties and reputational setbacks as the regulatory tide continues to rise.