Massachusetts regulators target FanDuel over Bill Simmons proxy betting case
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission has voted unanimously to hold an adjudicatory hearing with FanDuel over proxy wagers placed on podcaster Bill Simmons’ account by another person.
According to a memo from the commission’s Investigations and Enforcement Bureau, FanDuel reported that 22 wagers totaling US$21,800 were placed through Simmons’ account on 5, 7 and 19 August. The hearing will examine whether the operator breached Massachusetts rules requiring sportsbooks to prevent proxy betting. A date has not yet been set.
The case came to light after Simmons, founder of sports and pop culture website and podcast network The Ringer, described the bets on a 30 August episode of The Bill Simmons Podcast.
He said that while he was in California, where sports betting is not legal, he wanted to place futures bets on UCLA and the NFL’s Houston Texans through his Massachusetts FanDuel account.
Simmons gave the verification code sent to his phone to his daughter’s 21-year-old boyfriend, Hank, who was in Massachusetts and placed the wagers on his behalf. Simmons later said he had not known about the state’s proxy betting rules.
FanDuel, The Ringer’s exclusive betting partner, reported the matter to regulators the day after the episode aired, voided the wagers and took unspecified action on the account.
Commission Chair Jordan Maynard said he was more interested in how the operator allowed the bets to happen and how it responded once they became public. Commissioner Eileen O’Brien said proxy betting has been a major concern, particularly among young and college-age bettors.
Zachary Mercer, senior enforcement counsel at the Investigations and Enforcement Bureau, said nothing prevents the commission from pursuing action against Simmons or Hank as well as FanDuel. “We’ll be digging in on all facets of this and making determinations as the facts guide us,” he said.
The commission cannot bring criminal charges, according to sports betting analyst Bill Speros. Speros said the strongest option against Simmons and Hank would be placement on Massachusetts’ exclusion list, which would bar them from legally betting in the state. FanDuel faces greater financial risk, with Speros estimating a potential fine in the mid-five to low six figures.
FanDuel is also facing wider scrutiny. The Federal Trade Commission has reportedly begun a preliminary review of online sportsbooks, including FanDuel and DraftKings, focused on their marketing practices. The FTC has not confirmed an investigation, and both companies have said they have not been contacted by the agency.
Dig Deeper
Related stories
The Backstory
Massachusetts’ tightly watched betting market faces another compliance test
The proxy betting case involving FanDuel and Bill Simmons lands in a Massachusetts market that has become one of the more active U.S. laboratories for gambling oversight. Since legal sports wagering began, state officials have tried to balance a fast-growing digital betting business with strict rules on licensing, consumer protection, age limits and responsible gambling. That framework is now being tested not by an offshore operator or a new product category, but by one of the country’s biggest licensed sportsbooks and a high-profile media figure with commercial ties to the betting industry.
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission’s decision to move toward an adjudicatory hearing signals that regulators see the Simmons episode as more than a one-off account misuse issue. Proxy wagering goes to the core of online betting controls: whether operators can verify that the person placing a bet is the account holder, physically located in a legal jurisdiction and eligible to wager. In Massachusetts, those requirements are central to the legal bargain that allowed mobile sportsbooks to enter the market.
That bargain has been increasingly visible across several fronts. Licensed operators have argued that regulated betting channels consumers away from illegal sites, while regulators and Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell have insisted that legal status comes with enforceable obligations. The FanDuel matter sits squarely inside that tension. If a licensed operator cannot prevent or quickly detect bets made by someone other than the account holder, critics can argue that the regulated market is not delivering the safeguards it promised.
Campbell’s office has widened pressure on unlicensed gambling
The state’s broader enforcement posture sharpened before the FanDuel case. In September, Campbell filed suit against prediction market Kalshi, alleging the company was offering illegal sports wagering in Massachusetts under the label of event contracts. The complaint said Kalshi allowed users to trade yes-or-no contracts on sports outcomes that closely resembled moneyline, spread and total wagers available through licensed sportsbooks. The attorney general asked Suffolk Superior Court to order Kalshi to stop offering those products in the state while the case proceeds.
The Kalshi dispute, detailed in the state’s filed complaint, matters because it shows how Massachusetts officials are drawing a bright line around the sports betting license. Kalshi is regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, but Campbell’s office argued that federal commodities oversight does not allow a company to bypass Massachusetts sports wagering law. Regulators also objected to Kalshi allowing 18- to 20-year-olds to participate, while legal online sports betting in Massachusetts is limited to customers 21 and older.
Complete iGaming previously reported that Massachusetts sued Kalshi over alleged illegal sports wagering operations, with Gaming Commission Chair Jordan Maynard backing the attorney general’s position. Maynard said prediction market companies were moving into sports wagering without complying with age restrictions, taxes, player protection programs and other standards applied to licensed sportsbooks. That same philosophy underpins the FanDuel inquiry: market access is permitted, but only if the operator’s systems uphold the rules attached to it.
Offshore sites helped define the enforcement playbook
Massachusetts’ stance also reflects earlier action against offshore gambling websites. Campbell’s office sent cease-and-desist letters to Sportsbetting.ag and BetOnline.ag, saying the sites were marketing illegal wagering to Massachusetts residents while posing as legitimate businesses. The operators, believed to be tied to entities outside the U.S., were told to stop serving Massachusetts customers and refund bets placed by residents. They faced potential civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation.
That episode, covered in Massachusetts’ move to ban two online gambling sites, helped frame the state’s regulatory argument. Legal sports betting is not merely about allowing wagers; it is about moving betting activity into systems that regulators can audit and sanction. The state has seven licensed sports betting platforms, and official data have shown substantial handle, including $676.1 million in wagers in April, up from $591.5 million a year earlier.
When regulators pursue offshore operators, the target is outside the licensed system. With FanDuel, the issue is different and potentially more consequential for the regulated market’s credibility. A licensed sportsbook is expected to have geolocation tools, account security processes, know-your-customer controls and internal reporting mechanisms sufficient to prevent barred conduct or flag it quickly. FanDuel reported the Simmons wagers after the podcast discussion became public, voided the bets and took account action. The hearing will examine whether that response was enough and whether the bets should have been possible in the first place.
Youth gambling concerns run through the Simmons case
Proxy betting has drawn particular concern in Massachusetts because it can blur age, location and identity safeguards. Simmons said the bets were placed by his daughter’s 21-year-old boyfriend while Simmons was in California, where sports betting is not legal. Even though the person placing the wagers was described as old enough to bet in Massachusetts, the case touches concerns about young adults serving as conduits for others and about the normalization of betting among college-age consumers.
Those concerns were already a priority for Campbell’s office. In March 2024, she announced the Youth Sports Betting Safety Coalition, a public-private effort to raise awareness about the legal limits and risks of online sports gambling among young people. The coalition’s formation reflected unease that mobile betting, sports media and social platforms were combining to expose younger audiences to gambling messages at a scale that older regulatory models did not anticipate.
The Simmons matter illustrates why regulators focus on both operators and culture. Simmons is not only a bettor; he is a major sports media personality, and The Ringer has had an exclusive betting partnership with FanDuel. That relationship raises the stakes around public discussion of betting behavior, even when the conduct is later described as a misunderstanding. If prominent figures casually discuss workarounds to betting rules, regulators may worry that less sophisticated consumers will see those practices as acceptable.
Expansion debates sharpen scrutiny of operator behavior
The case also arrives as Massachusetts weighs how far to expand online gambling. Sports betting is legal, and the state lottery has now moved online. Aristocrat Interactive recently launched a turnkey ilottery platform for the Massachusetts State Lottery Commission, including eInstant games, online draw games and player account management tools. The launch, described in Aristocrat Interactive’s Massachusetts lottery rollout, marked the state lottery’s first online offering and tied digital lottery revenue to early childhood education and care grants.
At the same time, casino-style online gambling remains contested. Wynn Resorts has opposed proposals to legalize igaming in Massachusetts, warning that mobile casino betting could threaten revenue and jobs at Encore Boston Harbor. DraftKings and other supporters have argued that regulation would capture activity now flowing to unlicensed operators and could generate significant tax revenue. Complete iGaming reported that Wynn opposed Massachusetts online gambling proposals as lawmakers examined bills that would allow mobile casino wagers.
Operator compliance in sports betting will influence that debate. If licensed sportsbooks are seen as failing to police proxy betting or other core rules, opponents of igaming can use those lapses to argue against further digital expansion. Supporters of expansion, meanwhile, need the existing sports betting system to demonstrate that regulated companies can be held accountable and that regulators can respond effectively when problems surface.
The stakes extend beyond one account
FanDuel’s immediate risk may be a fine or other regulatory sanction, but the larger issue is confidence in the Massachusetts model. The state has pursued offshore sites, challenged prediction markets, built youth gambling initiatives and moved cautiously on broader online casino legislation. Each step depends on a central premise: legal operators are different from illegal ones because they can be supervised, disciplined and required to protect consumers.
The adjudicatory hearing will test that premise in a highly visible setting. Regulators will likely examine how the verification code was used, whether account controls should have stopped the activity, how FanDuel’s systems treated the wagers and whether the company acted promptly once it became aware of the podcast comments. The commission may also consider whether action against individuals is appropriate, though its strongest leverage is over licensed entities.
For Massachusetts, the case is a reminder that legalization does not end the policy fight over gambling. It moves that fight into compliance departments, enforcement hearings and legislative committees. The outcome will help define how strictly the state expects sportsbooks to police identity and location rules, and how much tolerance regulators have when a breach becomes public only because the bettor talked about it.
