Massachusetts Treasurer rejects calls to open igaming market
Massachusetts Treasurer Deb Goldberg has opposed legalizing casino igaming in Massachusetts, warning it would undercut the state’s forthcoming ilottery and reduce the lottery’s annual local-aid contributions.
Speaking at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce event, Goldberg, who also chairs the state Lottery Commission, said the ilottery was scheduled to launch next summer and was projected to generate approximately US$70 million in its first year of profit.
She said the long-delayed rollout would have produced significant returns during the pandemic and stressed that allowing online casino-style games would jeopardize the lottery’s position.
Massachusetts introduced regulated online sports betting in 2023, with oversight by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.
Lawmakers are now considering a proposal from Rep. David Muradian to regulate casino igaming through a 15% tax on gross revenue. Supporters have argued the measure could bring US$170 million to US$200 million each year.
Opponents, including the National Association Against iGaming, pointed to research suggesting a US$100 million annual decline in gaming taxes, a US$62 million drop in non-gaming taxes, and social costs estimated at US$260 million.
Goldberg said the lottery’s roughly US$1 billion yearly profit for local aid could be threatened by competition from igaming, noting that operators would have a broader advertising reach and offer more player incentives.
Lottery Executive Director Mark William Bracken stated that online lottery profits would be allocated to early childhood education grants.
Goldberg said, “We won’t be able to compete in terms of advertising,” adding that her priority was protecting communities and services reliant on Lottery revenue.
There has also been opposition from the state’s land-based venues, with Wynn Resorts suggesting the introduction of igaming could threaten its 3,300 workforce.
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.
Verticals:
Sectors:
Topics:
Dig Deeper
Related stories
The Backstory
What set the stage
Massachusetts’ latest fight over online casino play has been building since the state jumped into mobile sports betting in 2023. As lawmakers weigh a fresh push to legalize igaming with a 15% tax, the treasurer’s office is staking out a protective line around the state lottery and its coming ilottery launch. The argument is straightforward: digital casino games could siphon attention, ad dollars and discretionary spend just as the lottery prepares to go online.
The debate is not just about revenue splits. It is about the order of operations in a newly digitized gambling market and whether Massachusetts should harden consumer protections before adding products that are always-on and promotion-heavy. That tension has defined much of the U.S. post-PASPA era and is now converging on Beacon Hill as stakeholders warn of job losses, local-aid risks and regulatory gaps.
The politics are sharpened by timing. The lottery expects to roll out its ilottery next summer, with projected first-year profits of about $70 million, earmarked in part for early childhood education grants. Proponents of igaming say the state could net $170 million to $200 million in annual tax revenue. The treasurer and lottery leaders counter that the math ignores where dollars are coming from and whether the lottery can compete against heavily promoted casino apps.
Lottery first, then what
Lottery dominance has long underwritten local aid in Massachusetts, but the digital shift has scrambled competitive lines. Supporters of online casino games argue channelization—moving players from unregulated to regulated options—requires a full product set. Opponents say that logic blurs a key distinction: the lottery funds public services while casino-style play concentrates benefits among private operators.
The clash mirrors a broader regulatory hesitation across the U.S. Despite widespread sports betting adoption, only a handful of states have authorized full-service igaming. The reasons are political and practical. Lawmakers prefer to bank lottery stability first, then test the impact of digital sports wagering before taking on higher-velocity casino games. That is the sequence Massachusetts followed, and the treasurer’s warning effectively says the state is not finished with step two.
The market backdrop is noisy. Promotions and advertising have driven customer acquisition in sports betting, and operators would likely carry over those tactics to online casino products. That is partly why the treasurer argues the lottery cannot match the reach or incentives that casino apps deploy, especially if both are live statewide on phones at the same time.
Jobs, foot traffic and the casino lobby
The labor and retail cases against igaming have landed with force. Wynn Resorts told lawmakers the move to authorize mobile casino play could erode on-site revenue and threaten the 3,300-person workforce at Encore Boston Harbor. In a pointed letter, the company framed phone-based casino play as more addictive and warned that rosy tax projections ignore a potential decline in brick-and-mortar gaming taxes. Labor unions and the Retailers Association of Massachusetts backed those concerns, citing risks to in-person jobs and small-business foot traffic tied to casino and lottery sales.
DraftKings, by contrast, has urged lawmakers to expand and regulate, arguing that igaming would divert dollars from illegal sites and drive up to $200 million a year in tax receipts. The split underscores the core trade-off: whether incremental online revenue offsets the potential hit to physical venues and lottery-linked retail. Committee leaders have said employment impacts will be central to deliberations, a signal that the job-loss argument will weigh as heavily as budget math.
The fault lines were on display as the state’s economic development committee reviewed measures including Rep. David Muradian’s plan to allow mobile casino-style wagers. The industry is far from unified. Read more about the push and blowback in Wynn Resorts opposes Massachusetts’ online gambling proposals.
Advertising whiplash and calls for guardrails
Even as gambling expands, regulators are pressing for tougher rules on how it is marketed. Massachusetts Gaming Commission Chair Jordan Maynard has urged Congress to consider national limits on ads and a unified self-exclusion framework. He likened the current landscape to “a highway without speed limits,” arguing that regulators, not operators, should set the pace and safety features. That stance hints at a possible precondition for igaming: curb the marketing excess first.
Nationally, operators have fought proposals to ban bets on individual college athletes and to restrict in-play wagering. In Massachusetts, the ad debate could become a lever. If lawmakers see a chance to slow the ad blitz or harmonize protections, they may insist on those steps before opening a new market vertical. For context on the regulatory drumbeat, see Massachusetts gambling official calls for stricter advertising rules.
Innovation meets regulatory skepticism
The policy argument is unfolding alongside an industry push to broaden the innovation pipeline. Advocates like veteran operator Sue Schneider are trying to bring new entrants into the fold, arguing that startups can improve consumer protections and product design if given access and clarity. Her initiative with Paris Smith and Kelly Kehn, Defy The Odds, aims to connect founders, investors and regulators to speed responsible growth. That effort highlights a tension in Massachusetts: the state wants to protect lottery revenues, but the industry argues that better regulated, more diverse products can crowd out illegal options.
Schneider has also flagged the U.S. market’s slow uptake of legalized igaming despite the sports betting surge. She points to cycles where jurisdictions open, rush in operators, then stabilize under regulation. Massachusetts is nearing that stabilization on sports, which could set the preconditions for igaming—if policymakers are convinced on safeguards and fiscal impacts. Learn more in Sue Schneider: Holding the door open for igaming innovators.
Credibility, enforcement and the gray edges
Trust in operators and suppliers also influences legislative appetite. A high-profile dispute between Evolution and Playtech over an alleged smear campaign has drawn scrutiny to business practices in unregulated and sanctioned markets. While a New Jersey court recently rejected core claims tied to a 2021 report, Playtech said it commissioned the probe to address “credible and repeated concerns” about market conduct. The back-and-forth underscores a basic risk for lawmakers: if they greenlight igaming, they need confidence that suppliers and partners will meet the bar in regulated play and steer clear of gray zones. For the industry’s reputational crosscurrents, see Playtech rejects Evolution’s ‘smear campaign’ allegation.
At the same time, courts are sketching the boundary between regulated prediction markets and gambling. A federal judge in California refused to block Kalshi’s sports-related event contracts, holding that its yes/no markets fall under the Commodity Exchange Act and the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction. The ruling suggests parts of the speculative landscape may grow outside traditional gaming laws, complicating channelization claims. If prediction markets expand with federal cover, lawmakers weighing igaming must decide whether to meet consumers where they already are. Read more in Judge rejects tribes’ bid to block Kalshi’s sports events contracts.
Those threads converge in Massachusetts: a lottery that funds local aid, casinos warning about jobs, regulators pressing for national standards and a market that keeps creating gray zones. The treasurer’s stance signals that the state will not add another digital channel until it is convinced the fiscal, social and regulatory guardrails can hold. The next moves—on advertising limits, ilottery performance and job impact data—will determine whether igaming advances or stalls for another session.
