Massachusetts Approves First-In-The-Nation Regulations To Address Sportsbooks Player Limits

Dec 18th, 2025 11:47 AM EST

Massachusetts approved on Thursday the first-in-the-nation regulations on player limits imposed by legal sportsbooks. The new rules passed 5-0 by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission would require the legal operators in the Bay State to both notify players “in a timely manner” that they have been limited, explain why, and inform them in the specific markets from which they have been limited.

The regulations approved now face a mandatory public comment period.

“We are the first jurisdiction to take up this issue,” MGC Chair Jordan Maynard said Thursday. "This was not an easy topic to take on. It’s a good thing for the citizens and patrons of the Commonwealth."

The measure passed with no debate. Rather all 5 Commissioners agreed to the second, more in depth rule, offered.

"It's not just transparency, it's fundamental fairness," Commissioner Eileen O’Brien said.

Across Massachusetts and elsewhere, legal online sportsbook patrons have seen their wagers cut to zero, or close to it. But often - if not always - only after winning. Thursday, regulators approved a new regulation that would force operators to inform players that they have been limited, why they were limited, and in which markets they have been limited.

News of the new regulations was first reported by bookies.com Saturday.

Regulators Weigh Concerns Of Public, Sportsbooks

Regulators weighed those patrons’ protection concerns against potential losses to sportsbooks. Legal books face continued competition from offshore and illegal operators. In addition, prediction markets such as Kalshi, Robinhood, and Polymarket now offer sports event contracts. Those platforms are federally regulated and offered in all 50 states.

The MGC met in on Sept. 30 - mostly in executive session - to discuss player limits.

“What we’ve been hearing from members of the public is that if you show a tendency to win, you will be limited. And if you show a tendency to lose, you will have that limit raised,” said MGC Sports Wagering Division Chief Carrie Torrisi during the public portion of that meeting.

MGC Sought Input From Multiple Stakeholders

Operators typically do not notify players when their limits are cut. Nor do they explain the reasons for the restrictions, which commissioners view as an issue of "fundamental fairness."

This lack of transparency in limiting policies became a significant consumer protection concern issue for the MGC.

The MGC solicited input from a wide range of stakeholders to ensure its review of player stake factoring and limiting practices was fair, data-driven, and balanced for both operators and customers.

Among those stakeholders was American Bettors’ Voice.

It assisted the MGC in shaping and structuring the operator data requests related to player limits.

“Those requests allowed the Commission to empirically demonstrate that players who consistently beat the closing line were more likely to receive lower stake factors — effectively reduced betting limits — while players who do not beat the closing line were more likely to receive higher stake factors and increased limits,” ABV Board Member Adam Robinson told bookies.com. “The data confirmed a clear relationship between betting performance and limit treatment.”

‘Sportsbooks Systematically Restrict Successful Bettors’

Robinson reiterated that this has been a long-standing issue with bettors.

“Regulated sportsbooks systematically restrict successful bettors while increasing limits for losing players, often identifying the latter for VIP programs. This ‘ban-or-bankrupt’ approach is fundamentally unfair to consumers, and ABV has consistently advocated for transparent, posted limits across all bets offered.”

Robinson stressed the importance of the difference between sharp bettors and those who simply pounce on mistakes.

“Sharp, lawful betting activity that fully complies with an operator’s published terms and conditions, and exploitative advantage play that seeks to capitalize on palpable errors or obvious mispriced lines. These are not the same behaviors, and they should not be treated the same from a regulatory or consumer-protection standpoint. Any gaming regulator examining stake factoring practices must clearly understand and preserve this distinction,” he said.

A "legitimate wager that is properly priced, offered, and accepted by the operator should be subject to any minimum limit or stake-factor regulation, regardless of whether the bettor is skilled or successful. That treatment should be separate and distinct from an operator’s right to void or correct wagers that meet the established definition of a palpable error.”

ABV supports the adoption of minimum posted limits on all bets, set as a percentage of the maximum stake offered to customers with the highest stake factor. For example, if a market allows a maximum wager of $10,000, a minimum posted limit of 5% would require at least a $500 bet to be available to all customers.

Study Found More Than 13,000 Accounts Limited

The MGC commissioned a study of its regulated operators seeking to determine how many players were being limited. It found 0.64% of the 2.1 million online wagering accounts in the state (or approximately 13,400) were limited by operators. No reasons were given for the limitations. Patrons claim their limits came following big wins, or multiple successful parlay plays. Books say they have also limited some players due to concerns over problem gambling.

The Commonwealth first approached after receiving multiple complaints from sportsbook customers. The customers claimed regulated sportsbooks limited them because they won.

The Gaming Commission initially asked operators to join them for a discussion on the matter in May 2024. Only 1 of the state’s retail and online operators initially agreed to cooperate with the Commission. That triggered anger both in public and in private among Commissioners. The MGC upped the ante 3 months later. It gave operators a second chance. Commissioners let it be known they would be putting their licenses at risk. Or face an outright ban on player limits, if they chose to cooperate.

Sportsbooks Say They Limit Only ‘Advantaged’ Players

The operators offered their side of this issue during a public meeting on Sept. 11, 2024.

“To effectively manage risk, we limit a small minority of patrons that we consider to be advantaged players who attempt to take advantage or find ways around our risk management framework. This group of limited patrons, many of whom self-identify as professional bettors, are loud in insisting that limiting patrons is a pervasive practice by operators. However, this is not accurate; it is actually the opposite,” BetMGM senior director of compliance Sarah Brennan told the MGC.

She added that BetMGM limits only 1% of its Bay State customers. “And it is our ability to limit that small minority of advantaged players that allow us to continue to offer competitive lines, competitive odds, and a wide variety of markets for the 99% of non-advantaged players that play with us.”

Sportsbooks Work To 'Manage Our Liability Exposure'

Other operators who spoke at that September 2024 meeting shared similar sentiments. They publicly admitted what many had believed: Sports betting operators limit players who are more likely to win.

FanDuel’s vice president of product and new market compliance Cory Fox said his book works to “manage our liability exposure and avoid unsustainable losses” from players looking for errors. They also hope to play off different lines between books, he said. Or those who live bet while attending games to beat live line changes.

“On an average day, FanDuel takes wagers on 2,700 unique events and over 37,000 different markets within those events. So in limited cases, over all those markets, some users may have more information than we do. Some users may have a better model than we do,” he said. “We’re comfortable taking wagers for them, but we have to do it in a responsible manner that protects our company.”'