Massachusetts Gaming Commission considers new rules for sports betting VIP programs

Abi Bray

21 October 2025 at 2:25am UTC-4

Source: Shutterstock

Email, LinkedIn, and more

Massachusetts Gaming Commission Chair Jordan Maynard has floated a change to current regulations that allow sportsbooks to engage in “predatory practices” through VIP programs.

Analysis posted by the Commission last month found that while players who are losing are sent invitations to join VIP or Loyalty Clubs, winning bettors are instead seeing restrictions applied to their accounts.

Article continues below ad

Mark Vander Linden, who is the Commission’s Research Director, has cited studies from other countries that show that VIP customers tend to be more likely to have gambling issues.

He also suggested potential regulation changes, including raising the legal age limit to join a VIP club to 25, introducing affordability checks, and getting rid of any risk-promoting incentives.

The potential changes come after the Commission imposed a US$450,000 fine on DraftKings in the summer for accepting credit cards, which was the largest fine of its kind to be issued.

Article continues below ad

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission is also investigating the sportsbook operator for emails related to a bonus bet that were sent to customers who had opted to self-exclude from the sportsbook.

Abi Bray brings strong researching skills to the forefront of all of her writing, whether it’s the newest slots, industry trends or the ever changing legislation across the U.S, Asia and Australia, she maintains a keen eye for detail and a passion for reporting.

View Abi Bray's bio and articles.

Locations:

Verticals:

Sports Betting

Sectors:

Topics:

Dig Deeper

The Backstory

Why the commission is turning the screws now

Massachusetts’ review of sportsbook VIP programs did not emerge in a vacuum. It follows a year of intensified scrutiny over how operators market to and manage high-value customers, and whether consumer protections have kept pace with the rapid expansion of legal wagering. Since the Supreme Court opened the door in 2018, legal sports betting has spread across most of the country, bringing record ad spending and sophisticated loyalty schemes. In Massachusetts, regulators and public health advocates have zeroed in on whether those tactics push riskier behavior or sidestep age and self-exclusion safeguards. The debate has become a stress test for a young regulatory regime trying to balance tax revenue with addiction risks and fair play.

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission’s leadership has signaled a tougher posture on industry practices that appear to reward losses while limiting winners. That posture fits a broader shift toward measurable harm reduction: transparency on advertising, enforcement against unlicensed activity and clearer guardrails for products that can drive heavy play. The upshot is a more aggressive approach that could reshape how operators segment, incentivize and communicate with their customers in one of the nation’s most closely watched betting markets.

Regulators escalate calls to rein in marketing

Commission Chair Jordan Maynard has been pushing for stronger limits on how sportsbooks promote themselves, in Massachusetts and nationally. In comments reported overseas and echoed stateside, he urged federal lawmakers to consider restrictions on betting ads and to explore a nationwide self-exclusion framework. His argument: the pace of growth has outstripped the safety features regulators typically require in mature consumer markets. As he put it, the industry needs guardrails, not a race to the bottom. That stance is detailed in reporting on how the chair has called for stricter advertising rules and a national self-exclusion list.

Maynard’s critique undercuts a common defense from the industry that tighter rules would push consumers to offshore sites. He has warned that leaning on the illegal-market threat cannot be a blank check to avoid reforms. For Massachusetts operators, the signal is clear: promotions, VIP perks and cross-channel marketing that nudge higher spend are likely to face closer review, especially when they intersect with self-exclusion status, affordability concerns or youthful audiences.

Audit findings increased pressure for oversight

A state audit released Aug. 28 intensified the focus on marketing controls during the pivotal months after Massachusetts launched mobile betting. The review from Auditor Diana DiZoglio faulted the commission for not reviewing sports betting ads before they reached consumers and flagged dozens of instances in which promotions hit minors or individuals with gambling problems. It also found gaps in training for casino staff assigned to help at-risk patrons. The findings raised questions about whether early implementation left a window where aggressive marketing got ahead of protections designed to prevent harm.

The agency said it is moving to implement the fixes, including hiring an independent auditor to assess operator compliance. Still, the report’s bottom line was stark: even with robust regulations on paper, enforcement and preclearance matter. The episode, captured in an analysis of the audit that criticized the commission over betting ads, set the stage for a broader tightening of policies touching advertising, VIP outreach and how operators target high-value users. It also gave public health advocates fresh leverage to press for preapproval of ads, stronger disclosures and documented training outcomes.

Prediction markets opened a new front in the legal fight

As the commission revisited marketing and VIP rules, the legal landscape shifted under its feet. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell sued prediction market Kalshi in Suffolk Superior Court, alleging the platform was offering unlicensed sports wagering under the guise of event contracts. The complaint argued Kalshi’s contracts mirrored sportsbook bets but lacked state licensing and consumer protections, such as a minimum betting age of twenty-one and responsible gambling limits. The attorney general also emphasized the risks of younger users accessing sports-related trades through mainstream finance apps and social media promotions. The case is outlined in coverage of how the attorney general sued Kalshi for unlawful sports wagering.

Kalshi’s distribution through brokerages added complexity. Robinhood, which provides access to Kalshi’s contracts, filed its own lawsuit against the commission seeking to block enforcement of gambling laws against its prediction-market access. The platform argued that state gambling statutes should not apply because trades occur on Kalshi, a federally regulated exchange. The move underscored a broader national clash over whether event contracts tied to sports are financial products or wagers that require state licenses. For Massachusetts, the litigation tests how far its authority extends over novel products and whether consumer protections in sports betting law can reach adjacent markets. The back-and-forth is detailed in reporting that Robinhood sued the commission in response to the Kalshi lawsuit.

Youth risks and political momentum

The commission’s VIP review also lands amid heightened attention to underage gambling risks. State leaders have framed youth exposure as a front-burner public health issue, pointing to an ecosystem where sports content, social media and real-time odds converge. The attorney general has pushed partnerships to curb youth sports betting and issued cease-and-desist letters to unlicensed operators. That political momentum matters for VIP policies because loyalty clubs, complimentary perks and “high-touch” outreach can be especially problematic when they intersect with college-age consumers or those new to betting. Regulators are likelier to raise age thresholds for club participation, require affordability checks for high-frequency customers and limit inducements that encourage chasing losses.

Public messaging has shifted too. Polling cited by industry groups and officials suggests many Americans see little daylight between event contracts tied to sports and traditional wagers. If voters view these products as functionally equivalent, pressure will build to harmonize rules across formats and platforms. In practice, that could mean broader definitions of sports betting, more aggressive identity verification and common standards for deposit caps, cooling-off periods and outreach to self-excluded individuals.

What tighter VIP rules could mean

The commission’s push to recalibrate VIP programs would ripple across operator playbooks. Restrictions on targeted offers to losing bettors, higher minimum ages for loyalty tiers and mandatory affordability reviews could curb the volume-driven tactics that have defined early market share battles. Operators already confronting rising compliance costs, ad audits and litigation risk would need to update segmentation models, retrain hosts and reassess high-roller economics. Those changes would arrive as the national market continues to expand and new entrants chase growth, as seen with operators pursuing approvals beyond their home states, including recent moves like a Tennessee license renewal that positions an app for further expansion.

For consumers, stricter VIP standards could bring clearer disclosures and fewer risk-promoting incentives, particularly for those who have self-excluded or show signs of harm. For regulators, the next test is execution: preclearing marketing where appropriate, auditing outreach lists, enforcing age gates and aligning rules across sportsbooks and adjacent platforms. Massachusetts has signaled it will not wait for industry self-correction. The trajectory from ad oversight gaps to litigation over unlicensed activity points to a tighter regime where VIP programs are judged by whether they protect the public as much as they reward loyalty.