Massachusetts iCasino hearing highlights split over iGaming expansion

A Bill That Could Change the State’s Market

Rep. David Muradian presented his bill, H4431, which would let the state’s three casinos offer online casino games. He said the plan may pull users away from illegal websites and bring play into a system with clear rules. The bill adds a 15% tax on online casino revenue and sets several protections for players.

The committee will accept written comments until 20 November. A full House report is due by 17 December — a reminder that the process moves step by step.

Industry leaders backed the bill. They said Online Casinos in Massachusetts could shrink the illegal market and offer more oversight. One speaker noted that iGaming often wins support from both parties in other states. Another said this move could reward companies that follow stronger rules.

Here are the points that supporters raised:

• Online casinos may draw users away from illegal sites.

• New taxes could support state programs.

• Extra rules could protect players more effectively.

Strong Concerns From Opponents

Several lawmakers who once backed sports betting said they now worry about the rise in problem gambling. They noted the increase in calls for help since sports betting went live — a jump that may grow if online casinos expand.

A national group argued that online casinos may hurt land-based casinos. It pointed to a 26% drop in casino jobs in one nearby state after online casino games launched — a number used to show possible risks. It also said Massachusetts could lose around 16% of land-based casino revenue if online casinos grow too fast.

Problem-gaming experts added more details. One consultant said fewer than 2% of state residents use tools meant to limit risky play. She warned that wider access could make that gap even larger — a point that drew careful attention from lawmakers.

Other Gaming Ideas Still Under Review

The committee also reviewed several other gaming bills. Some aim to support land-based casinos, while others would let fraternal groups run small games or expand in-person sportsbooks. Each idea may shape the market in different ways — and none appear simple.

The hearing ended without a vote, yet the debate now sits in full view. What happens next could decide how Massachusetts balances revenue, risk, and the changing habits of its players.