Online sportsbook operators in Massachusetts are going to have to notify and then explain in detail to bettors why they’re no longer allowed to wager as much as they once could.
And the books will have to start doing so in the commonwealth before the start of the NFL season, although operators may seek "waivers" that allow them more time.
- The Massachusetts Gaming Commission voted to require licensed sportsbooks to notify limited bettors within 48 hours of those restrictions being imposed, and to provide specific explanations when their wagering limits are reduced.
- Operators must implement the rule by June 1 and retain detailed, non-boilerplate communications for audit.
- The move is in response to complaints about allegedly unfair limiting practices and aims to increase transparency.
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) voted unanimously on Thursday to adopt a regulation that would require a sportsbook operator to have in place "procedures to provide timely notice to a patron that their wagering activity has been limited, including a specific explanation for the attachment of the limit(s) and identification as to which market(s) are so limited."
In other words, a licensed sportsbook in the commonwealth would need a system in place to let bettors know that they’ve had the amount they’re allowed to bet restricted, and then back that up with an explanation for why and what exactly has been limited.
Massachusetts unanimously approved a regulation that requires sportsbooks to notify bettors within 48 hours of limiting their account.
— Fairplaygov (@fairplaygov) February 26, 2026
It will come with almost stunning granular guidance backing the reg.
Goes into effect on June 1, pending waiver requests from sportsbooks.
🧵 pic.twitter.com/x8RLEao42G
Before approving the regulation, commissioners spent some time going back and forth with staff regarding questions posed by sportsbook operators about how the rule would work in practice.
Commissioners were, for example, in favor of the effective date of the new regulation being June 1. They also expect “timely notice” of limiting to mean within 48 hours and for bettors to be notified each time they're limited.
Furthermore, the commissioners expressed a desire for currently limited players to be notified about their wagering restrictions.
“I like it because it forces the operators to review today where they stand on some of these limits going forward, which I think is the whole purpose of it,” MGC chair Jordan Maynard said during Thursday’s meeting. “And [operators] did convince me, maybe to their detriment, that it’s a small enough number of patrons where they’re able to do that kind of analysis.”
Additional directions from the commissioners included that a bettor limited in another jurisdiction who tries to wager in Massachusetts should be notified if they’re limited while in the commonwealth.
Explain yourself
The books will be required to retain their communications with bettors about limits so the MGC can audit those messages and ensure compliance. The communications will have to be more than “boilerplate” explanations as well.
“It has to be something particularized to the patron,” commissioner Eileen O’Brien said.
While the Massachusetts sports betting regulator reserves the right to tinker further, and operators have the right to voice their concerns and seek waivers for the regulation, Thursday’s approval puts the commonwealth in line to address a concern they’ve long heard about. That concern is the complaints they've received from bettors that they’re being unfairly limited by sportsbook operators. Some bettors suspect they’re being restricted in how much they can wager simply because they win too much.
Enjoying Covers content? Add us as a preferred source on your Google account
Mandatory prediction market mention
For its part, the MGC has been a trailblazer on the issue among regulators of online sports betting in the U.S. The commission has been holding meetings and discussions about bettor limiting for a few years now, and hasn’t let the issue go.
Operators have argued that limits are applied only to a small percentage of the wagering population. They also contend limits are applied for good reasons, such as bettors who attempt to "courtside" by attending events and trying to bet on an outcome before a sportsbook can update the odds. Moreover, the companies claim limits allow them to offer more betting markets.
Yet the limiting issue has loomed even larger now that there are federally regulated prediction markets available across the U.S. that boast they do not limit bettors at all. Some sharp bettors have found a home on the exchanges, which pair buyers and sellers of event contracts in a way that can resemble state-regulated sports betting.
Prediction markets have faced pushback from state regulators and lawmakers, including in Massachusetts. However, they are still facilitating de facto sports wagering all over the U.S., competing with state-regulated sportsbooks in some jurisdictions.
“Those who advocate for those pseudo-regulated, so-called prediction market products, they use the fact that they don’t limit as a positive for their product, and so I think that as far as the operators can possibly push their business model to be transparent on this piece is a net positive ultimately,” Maynard said on Thursday.
