A Massachusetts lawmaker is walking back his support for the state’s sports betting law, publicly acknowledging concerns about how the industry has evolved since legalization.
In a recent statement, State Senator John Keenan said he regrets his vote to authorize sports wagering. He is now pushing for substantial reforms aimed at tightening consumer protections and limiting the market’s reach.
His remarks come as lawmakers across the country reassess the rapid expansion of legal betting and its broader impact on fans, players, and the industry itself.
Keenan discussed his legislation, S 302, during a hearing of the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies on Thursday. He laid out a broad set of reforms that he believes are necessary to rein in the state’s rapidly growing sports betting market.
Framing the proposals as consumer-protection measures, Keenan argued that Massachusetts needs stronger guardrails to prevent the kinds of gambling-related harms and integrity concerns. This comes after recent scandals in the NBA and MLB.
The bill introduces several substantial changes that would dramatically reshape how sports betting operates in Massachusetts. Under S 302, advertising during televised sporting events would be banned, eliminating one of the industry’s most visible promotional channels.
The legislation would also end prop bets and live bets, two increasingly popular bet types that Keenan says heighten risks for problem gambling and game-integrity issues.
On the financial side, the bill proposes strict daily and monthly wagering limits, including $1,000 per day and $10,000 per month. The exception is if operators conduct an affordability check, verifying that the bettor’s wagering does not exceed 15% of their bank account balance.
The legislation would further tighten oversight by prohibiting employees, affiliates, or subcontractors from earning compensation tied to bets or deposits, reducing what Keenan views as problematic financial incentives.
Finally, the bill seeks to raise the state tax rate on sports betting operators from 20% to 51%, aligning Massachusetts with New York’s high-tax model. Keenan argued that, given the industry’s rapid growth and the risks associated with expanded wagering, operators can and should contribute more to the state in return.
If adopted, the reforms outlined in S 302 would shift Massachusetts from a bettor-friendly environment to one of the most restrictive sports betting markets in the country. The bill’s two most impactful provisions, the 51% tax rate and the elimination of all prop bets and in-play wagering, stand out as major changes. This would place Massachusetts at odds with nearly every other regulated sports betting state.
Raising the tax rate to 51%, matching New York’s industry-topping figure, would make Massachusetts one of the most expensive markets for operators to operate in. High tax environments generally lead to reduced promotional offers, less competitive odds, and fewer brands willing to enter or expand within the state.
If operators scale back or exit the market, consumers could face a noticeable decline in choice, value, and overall betting experience.
The proposed ban on prop bets and all in-play wagering would dramatically shrink the betting menu. Player props are among the most popular wager types nationwide, while in-play betting is one of the fastest-growing segments of the industry.
Removing both would leave Massachusetts with a significantly narrower offering than neighboring states like Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire.
Bettors who want access to these markets may look elsewhere.
Combined, these restrictions could inadvertently push Massachusetts players toward offshore or unregulated sportsbooks, where prop bets, in-play markets, and generous promotions remain widely available. Regulators and lawmakers have long warned that overly restrictive policies risk driving bettors back to the very platforms that legalization aimed to replace.
As written, S 302 could make Massachusetts one of the least appealing regulated sports betting markets in the U.S., while creating new opportunities for offshore operators to attract frustrated local bettors.
