Wynn Resorts opposes Massachusetts’ online gambling proposals
Wynn Resorts has pushed back against a renewed online gambling effort in Massachusetts, suggesting the expansion of igaming in the state could pose a threat to the 3,300-person workforce at its Encore Boston Harbor casino.
According to the Boston Globe, the state’s economic development committee reviewed gambling bills last week, including Rep. David Muradian’s plan to allow mobile casino-style wagers. Wynn warned in a letter that igaming could erode on-site revenue and jeopardize jobs.
Online sportsbook operator DraftKings has backed the expansion, and as part of the Sports Betting Alliance, it has been lobbying heavily and arguing that Massachusetts could generate up to US$200 million a year in extra tax revenue under Muradian’s bill.
Senior Government Affairs Manager at DraftKings, Rebecca London, stated that her company employs more than 1,300 people in the state and emphasized that regulated online gambling would divert activity away from unlicensed operators.
Wynn countered those claims. In a letter signed by Wynn’s Executive Director of Government Relations, Eileen McAnneny, it was argued that gambling on a mobile device is inherently more addictive and that revenue projections overlook “the potential loss of brick-and-mortar gaming taxes”.
Labor unions and the Retailers Association of Massachusetts echoed concerns about job losses and reduced foot traffic.
Massachusetts Committee Chair Representative Carole Fiola said employment impacts will be central to deliberations as lawmakers decide whether Massachusetts should join the seven states that already allow online casino gaming.
Massachusetts Senator John Keenan recently introduced Senate Bill 302, which would ban sports betting advertisements during live televised games and outlaw in-game prop bets after expressing regret for voting to legalize sports betting.
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
Behind the latest pushback
Massachusetts is weighing whether to broaden online gambling, and the arguments now surfacing mirror a national tug of war over jobs, tax revenues and player protection. The state’s review of bills that would allow mobile casino games has triggered warnings from brick-and-mortar operators about cannibalization, while online-first companies tout tax gains and migration from unregulated sites. Similar battles are unfolding elsewhere, where governors, lawmakers, courts and companies are drawing new lines on what a digital gambling market should look like and who bears the risk when it expands.
The stakes in Massachusetts are clear: lawmakers are probing whether new online products could siphon dollars and foot traffic from casinos and surrounding businesses. They are also confronting a broader policy puzzle: how to balance projected revenue against addiction risks and potential job losses. Recent developments in other states and abroad offer a guide to the forces shaping that decision.
Lessons from Ohio’s hard line
Ohio provides a sharp contrast at a moment when states are reassessing the pace and scope of expansion. Gov. Mike DeWine declared he is not in favor of legalizing online casino games, signaling concern that a 24/7 mobile product “puts a casino in everybody’s hands” and could heighten addiction. His stance lands squarely in the middle of a legislative drive to pass companion House and Senate bills that would authorize online slots and table games. Supporters tout more than $600 million in annual tax revenue, but the administration has framed the issue as a social cost calculus. The debate is captured in Ohio governor opposes igaming expansion, where arguments over market cannibalization and responsible gaming take center stage.
Ohio’s friction extends beyond casinos to sports betting, highlighting how quickly the regulatory perimeter can shift as policymakers respond to integrity and consumer protection concerns. Rep. Brian Stewart, a sponsor of the House online casino bill, has tangled with the governor over whether to ban player prop bets after an MLB-related investigation and reported threats to athletes. Stewart argues that prop bets remain a popular, significant source of tax revenue and should not be prohibited. The exchange, detailed in Ohio lawmaker opposes governor’s push to ban prop bets, shows how fast political consensus on gambling can fracture—even in states that legalized sports wagering with bipartisan support.
For Massachusetts, the Ohio experience underscores two points. First, promises of sizable tax inflows will be weighed against fears of ubiquity and addiction tied to mobile access. Second, once a state opens the door to digital betting, regulators face continuous pressure to redraw boundaries on products, advertising and consumer protections. That dynamic is already visible on Beacon Hill, where concerns about in-game betting and marketing have crept into the conversation about what expansion should look like.
Responsible gaming becomes a competitive variable
As lawmakers scrutinize risks, operators are trying to get ahead of the narrative with expanded harm-reduction tools and research partnerships. MGM Resorts and its joint venture with Entain, BetMGM, recently broadened funding and access for clinical referrals in every online jurisdiction where BetMGM operates and extended responsible gaming features in both online and retail channels. Those steps, outlined in MGM Resorts and BetMGM extend commitment to problem gambling research, reflect how operators are positioning compliance and care as part of their license to grow online. The companies are also engaging with university programs to deepen the pipeline of legal and responsible gaming expertise.
These initiatives do not eliminate policymakers’ concerns, but they can influence regulatory design. In markets where lawmakers are undecided, the breadth of voluntary tools—timeouts, messaging, and direct links to behavioral health—can shape perceptions of whether online products are easier to monitor than cash play at unregulated sites. For states with existing sports wagering frameworks, the question becomes whether those mechanisms scale to casino-style games or if new mandates are needed.
Courts are setting limits on liability
Even as the policy debate intensifies, courts are delineating where operators’ responsibilities end. A Third Circuit panel recently ruled that MGM Resorts is not liable for a compulsive gambler’s losses, affirming that New Jersey law does not impose a duty of care on casinos to protect problem gamblers from their own conduct. The decision, reported in Third Circuit judge rules MGM Resorts is not liable for gambling addict’s losses, reinforces a legal baseline that favors operators in negligence claims tied to player addiction.
For regulators and legislators, the ruling has implications for how to structure safeguards. If courts are disinclined to extend liability, the burden to mitigate harm shifts to statutory controls, licensing conditions and enforcement. That reality may encourage states to codify specific product restrictions, advertising limits and required consumer tools as a prerequisite for online casino authorization—especially in jurisdictions wary of eroding protections as they move beyond sports wagering.
Global shifts raise competitive pressure
The argument that online products can complement rather than cannibalize retail casinos is being tested in markets far from New England, where integrated resort operators are moving online to retain customers and offset geopolitical shocks. In the Philippines, Bloomberry Resorts is launching a new digital platform to capture domestic demand amid intensifying competition from an established online rival with tens of millions of users. The strategy, profiled in Bloomberry Resorts Corporation expands online gaming offering in the Philippines, is meant to diversify against lost play from overseas patrons and to defend share as more gaming activity migrates to mobile.
For Massachusetts officials, the global tilt to digital underscores both the inevitability and the complexity of online growth. Operators with significant in-state workforces argue that migration will happen with or without local authorization, and that timing and structure determine who benefits. Meanwhile, labor groups and retailers stress that even partial substitution can weaken on-site ecosystems, thinning service jobs, entertainment spend and ancillary taxes. The experiences of international resort companies, straddling retail and online channels, illuminate how difficult it is to maintain foot traffic once customers acclimate to digital play.
That tension sits at the heart of the state’s deliberations: whether regulated online casino games will formalize and tax activity already occurring in the shadows, or whether they will peel off enough on-property spending to shrink a hospitality footprint built on destination experiences. In other jurisdictions, that answer has hinged on product scope, tax rates, marketing rules and whether player protections are perceived as credible.
As lawmakers weigh next steps, they face converging currents: a governor in Ohio resisting 24/7 mobile casino access, a legislature there arguing for revenue and freedom of choice, operators investing in research and tools to blunt addiction risks, and courts signaling they are unlikely to expand liability for player losses. Massachusetts will decide how to balance those forces—and whether the promise of new tax dollars outweighs the potential costs to casino jobs, nearby businesses and consumer health.
