Massachusetts residents are already playing online casino games, state Rep. David Muradian said. His case for legalization is that the state should regulate that activity instead of leaving players with offshore sites.
- Muradian wants the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to oversee online casinos after his 2026 bill was sent to a study order.
- The proposal would give existing casino licensees up to three online brands each, tax gross revenue at 15%, and prohibit online sweepstakes games.
- Massachusetts lawmakers are weighing consumer safeguards and the new online lottery as Virginia and Ohio confront their own legalization hurdles.
“The question to me isn’t whether we should allow it or whether we want this activity to continue taking place in an unregulated black market,” Muradian said during an industry webinar earlier this month.
The Republican lawmaker is looking toward another attempt to bring online casinos under the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.
His bill was sent to a “study order” in March, leaving it without a path to passage this year. Muradian’s comments laid out a potential bipartisan argument for the next legislative session in the Democrat-controlled General Court: Massachusetts already regulates casinos and sports betting and could apply similar oversight to online casino games.
“The reality again is that people do have access to casino-style gaming right now,” Muradian said. “It’s just unregulated, it’s the ‘Wild West,’ it’s offshore.”
Bill would tie iGaming to existing casinos
The bill would authorize existing Massachusetts casino licensees to offer online casino games and partner with platform providers. Each licensee could offer up to three separately branded online platforms, or “skins.” The proposal would impose a 15% tax on adjusted gross gaming revenue, a $100,000 operator application fee, and a $50,000 fee for each skin.
Massachusetts has three casinos: MGM Springfield, Encore Boston Harbor, and PENN Entertainment-operated Plainridge Park.
The Gaming Commission would oversee licensing, investigations, and enforcement. Players would have to be at least 21 and physically located in Massachusetts or another jurisdiction covered by an authorized agreement when placing a wager.
Muradian’s proposal includes age and location checks, voluntary self-exclusion, player-set gambling limits, and restrictions on advertising aimed at people younger than 21. It would also prohibit online sweepstakes games, creating another potential point of contention beyond casino legalization.
Muradian said he spoke with retail casinos, online operators, legalization opponents, and responsible gambling groups while developing the legislation. His initial focus, he said, was determining what a regulated Massachusetts market would need to protect consumers.
“I approached it as a regulatory question first and a gaming question second,” he said.
The bill’s study order shows that those provisions have not yet secured enough support to advance. Massachusetts also recently launched online lottery games, giving lawmakers another product to assess before considering casino-style gaming on phones and computers.
Muradian said some legislators want to see the lottery’s results and weigh whether online casinos would draw spending away from existing games. That concern sits alongside questions about the effect on the state’s retail casinos, even though his proposal would give those properties the online licenses.
Other states face similar barriers
Massachusetts is not alone in facing obstacles to iGaming legalization.
Legal online casinos generated $10.73 billion in gross gaming revenue across seven operating states in 2025, according to figures cited during the iDEA panel. Yet the prospect of billions in accompanying tax revenue has not resolved objections over gambling harms, casino jobs, and whether online games would reduce spending at existing businesses.
Virginia came closer to legalization in 2026. Its House and Senate passed separate iGaming measures, but lawmakers could not reconcile them before the session ended. State Sen. Jeremy McPike during last week’s panel pointed to consumer protections and the capacity of Virginia’s gaming regulators as issues lawmakers must work through before another push in 2027.
Ohio Rep. Brian Stewart is pursuing a different approach to opposition from retail gambling businesses. He has discussed restricting digital promotional credits and directing those offers toward casinos and racinos, while limiting online licenses to existing operators. Stewart said a fight among gambling interests could stop a bill before it gains traction.
For Massachusetts, Muradian said the next proposal should take account of those concerns without overlooking residents who already seek out online casino games. He argued that the Gaming Commission’s experience with Massachusetts sports betting offers a foundation for another regulated market.
“I think for legislators we have an obligation to establish the rules of the road for an activity that is occurring,” Muradian said.
