Massachusetts lawmaker regrets vote to legalize gambling, wants to ban in-play prop bets
Massachusetts Senator John Keenan introduced Senate Bill 302 on Wednesday, citing regret for voting for the legalization of sports betting in the state.
His bill, which he has dubbed the ‘Bettor Health Act’, would ban advertisements for sports betting during live televised games and outlaw in-game prop bets.
Since legalizing sports gambling in early 2023, Massachusetts has collected more than US$315 million in tax revenue from sports betting. Under the proposed legislation, operators would be required to double their contributions to the public health trust fund to treat gambling-related harms.
Speaking on the new proposed legislation, Senator Keenan had a heartfelt apology for his constituents, “I deeply regret my vote, and I want to publicly apologize to those who lost the opportunity to sit and watch a game just for the enjoyment of the game. I want to apologize to those who lost loved ones to suicide because of gambling issues.”
Keenan also noted that easier access to online sportsbooks is creating a mental health crisis among those suffering from gambling addictions.
He added, “Sports betting is spinning out of control. Bettors quietly suffer from higher rates of suicide, divorce and job loss.”
In other news, a US District Court for Massachusetts judge has ruled against Kalshi’s attempt to move a state lawsuit to a federal court, leaving the case in the hands of the Superior Court of Suffolk County.
Charlotte Capewell brings her passion for storytelling and expertise in writing, researching, and the gambling industry to every article she writes. Her specialties include the US gambling industry, regulator legislation, igaming, and more.
Verticals:
Sectors:
Topics:
Dig Deeper
Related stories
The Backstory
Why Massachusetts is rethinking sports betting
Massachusetts’ shift from early adopter to cautious regulator has been swift. Less than two years after legal wagering went live, the state is weighing tighter controls on the fastest-growing parts of the market, including in-play and player proposition bets. The backdrop is a surge in participation, ad saturation and mounting concerns about harassment of athletes and gambling-related harm. The pivot aligns Massachusetts with a broader trend as policymakers in several states move to pare back high-velocity betting formats even as tax receipts climb.
The Commonwealth has already banked more than $315 million in sports betting taxes since early 2023, underscoring how entrenched the industry has become. Yet the debate has widened beyond revenue. Advocates for new limits cite the speed and frequency of wagers delivered via smartphones, the normalization of betting during live broadcasts and a growing body of integrity cases linked to prop markets. The proposed guardrails follow a national pattern: stabilize the market, reassess risk and recalibrate what kinds of wagers are permissible.
Prop bets under fire from Ohio to New Jersey
Massachusetts is not acting in isolation. In Ohio, a flashpoint emerged after two Cleveland Guardians pitchers were sidelined during a gambling probe. Gov. Mike DeWine urged regulators to prohibit player prop bets, calling the “harm to athletes and the integrity of the game” clear. His public appeal, detailed in the governor’s statement, raised the stakes for state regulators. But there is intrastate pushback: Ohio Rep. Brian Stewart opposed the governor’s plan, arguing prop wagers are popular with adults and a meaningful contributor to tax revenue since sportsbooks launched in January 2023. Stewart reiterated his stance in a post on X, signaling a legislative fight if regulators move ahead. DeWine’s ask to regulators is formal and on the record through the Governor’s Office, putting pressure on the Ohio Casino Control Commission to act.
New Jersey, an early leader in legal sports betting, is also narrowing the field. A targeted measure to curb college-related bets advanced when a college player prop ban cleared a Senate committee without opposition. Sponsors framed the bill as a response to harassment of athletes and integrity risks, the same themes resonating in Massachusetts. Together, the moves in Ohio and New Jersey illustrate a new regulatory consensus: props, especially on individual players, are the highest-risk wagers for manipulation and abuse.
College athletes at the center of policy shifts
Pressure is greatest where athletes are least insulated. College sports have become the focal point for reform, with the NCAA urging a nationwide end to player props since early 2024. North Carolina lawmakers advanced that agenda with a bipartisan bill to ban college prop bets at commercial sportsbooks. House Bill 828, filed April 8, defines props broadly and would take effect July 1, 2025, if enacted. The timing coincides with a surge in betting around March tournaments and NBA and NHL regular seasons, when North Carolina set a record handle of more than $667 million. Lawmakers there argued the measure is preventive: it protects student-athletes, reduces harassment and narrows the most volatile corner of the market without unwinding legalization.
New Jersey’s Senate bill and North Carolina’s proposal track with decisions in other states, including Ohio, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania and Louisiana, that already bar college player props. The alignment matters for Massachusetts. If the state follows peers by removing in-game props, especially at the college level, it would harmonize rules with major markets and blunt cross-border arbitrage, while allowing conventional pregame bets to remain.
Microbetting draws scrutiny amid integrity probes
Beyond player props, regulators are eyeing microbetting—rapid wagers on small, discrete moments like a single pitch or the next play. A New Jersey lawmaker moved to outlaw the practice outright, arguing its speed fuels impulsive gambling that can harm young people. Assemblyman Dan Hutchinson’s bill would ban wagers on in-game moments and calls for stronger safeguards while preserving legal betting overall. Hutchinson, a bankruptcy attorney, told CBS News Philadelphia that microbetting’s “dopamine-type effects” heighten risk, echoing clinical warnings about high-frequency products.
Integrity investigators have also zeroed in on micro markets in recent professional sports probes, where small, seemingly inconsequential outcomes can be exploited. For Massachusetts officials weighing in-play restrictions, New Jersey’s stance offers a model: trim the highest-velocity bets that carry the greatest addiction and integrity concerns, while preserving traditional markets that are easier to monitor. That approach could reduce enforcement friction and lower the volume of volatile wagers without dismantling the state’s broader framework.
Parallel fight over sweepstakes and online casinos in Massachusetts
The push to rein in sports betting overlaps with a separate policy track in the Commonwealth: clarifying the status of sweepstakes and potentially expanding online casino gaming. A House proposal aims to criminalize dual-currency sweepstakes while authorizing full igaming. The measure, filed as H4431, would ban operating or promoting prize-based contests of chance, with fines up to $100,000 and possible prison time for repeat violations. At the same time, it would allow the state’s three casinos to offer online slots and table games, taxed at 15%, with licensing and annual renewal fees.
The dual thrust—tightening gray-market games while legalizing a new channel—has drawn criticism from industry groups that warn against sweeping prohibitions. The Social Gaming Leadership Alliance said the bill “sends the wrong message” and urged “smart rules that protect consumers,” in a statement posted by the group’s leadership organization at SG Leadership. For policymakers, the trade-offs are stark: curbing unregulated sweepstakes could steer players into licensed casinos, but layering new sports betting limits at the same time might push some bettors to offshore sites.
What’s at stake for operators, fans and state coffers
For operators, a ban on in-play and player props would cut into some of the most engaging and profitable markets. Books would lean harder into pregame lines, parlays and same-game constructs that comply with new rules. Advertising limits during live games could reduce acquisition and push sportsbooks to shift marketing spend to pregame windows and non-broadcast channels. For fans, the experience could revert closer to traditional wagering, with fewer real-time prompts and less on-screen inducement during broadcasts.
For the state, the calculus blends public health, integrity and revenue. Massachusetts has seen material tax inflows, but regulators across the country are concluding that not all handle is created equal. Ohio’s high-profile inquiry, New Jersey’s legislative momentum and North Carolina’s bipartisan bill suggest a regulatory floor is rising around the riskiest products. If Massachusetts narrows props and in-play bets while clarifying sweepstakes and igaming, it would signal a mature second phase of the market: preserve legalization, prune the edges and prioritize protections as the industry settles into the mainstream.
