Online Gambling State Rankings

Massachusetts MA

Score: 60 / 100

Restriction points: 40 Protection points: 19 Tax points: 1 Last verified: January 22, 2026

Report Card

Grade
D
A+=100+ · A=90–99 · B=80–89 · C=70–79 · D=50–69 · F=30–49 · F−=0–29
Total score
60/100
40 + 0 + 0 + 19 + 1 − 0
Why this score

Legal Status

Legal StatusNotes & sources
Online sports betting Legal
  1. Financial Services, Technology and Communications (ncsl.org). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  2. Wikpedia. Gambling in the United States — Sports betting (Wikipedia). Accessed 2026-01-25.
iCasino (online casino-style games) Not legal
  1. Financial Services, Technology and Communications (ncsl.org). Accessed 2026-01-25.

Estimated Net Outflows

Estimated annual net outflow
$269,306,621

Online gambling apps route losses to out-of-state operators and vendors, creating large net leakages from state economies and reduced in-state spending by residents, even after deducting retained state taxes and activity from in-state app operations.

Model: gambling-flows (mid scenario, 2025).

History and Overview

  • When betting apps were legalized/launched (sports betting): online + retail launch: March 9, 2023.
  • Main legal model / provisions (sports betting): Massachusetts online sports betting commenced on March 10, 2023. Seven online sports betting operators kicked off the Commonwealth’s online sports betting.
  • Online casino / iCasino: Not legal.
  • Score-relevant protections observed here: Credit card funding ban (+5), Problem gambling hotline (+2), Funding for problem gambling messaging (+2), Non-integrated Self-exclusion list (+2), Close the Kalshi “investment contract” loophole (+8)

Legislative changes since launch

  • May 23, 2024 — Proposed/attempted: Massachusetts Senator proposes a massive 155% increase to state sports betting tax rate . Bill is ultimately defeated.
  1. States With Legal Sports Betting - US Legal Sports Betting Timeline (Sports Betting Dime, 2018-05-18). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  2. US Online Casino Sites & Legal Updates January 2026 (Sports Betting Dime, 2025-02-11). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  3. Massachusetts Sports Betting Apps: Top Sportsbooks & Promos (Sports Betting Dime, 2020-10-21). Accessed 2026-01-25.

Score math

Raw formula
score = policyPoints + protectionsPoints + taxPoints − promotionPenalty
This state
(40 + 0 + 0) + 19 + 1 − 0 = 60

Safety Scoring

Scoring methodology and formula.

Online sports betting

Awarded
0 / 30
Legal Status
Legal

Online sports betting apps are legal.

  1. Financial Services, Technology and Communications (ncsl.org). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  2. Wikpedia. Gambling in the United States — Sports betting (Wikipedia). Accessed 2026-01-25.

iCasino (online casino-style games)

Awarded
40 / 40
Legal Status
Not legal

iCasino apps are not legal.

  1. Financial Services, Technology and Communications (ncsl.org). Accessed 2026-01-25.

State promotion / advertising of online gambling

Penalty
0 / 8

Not in place.

Tax Score

Awarded
1 / 4
Why
Derived from online tax rate 20% → ceil(20/20) = 1 (capped at 4).

Tax rate (sports betting operators): Online 20%; retail 15%

  • Excise: 20% of adjusted gross sports wagering receipts from mobile applications/digital platforms; 15% from in-person sports wagering.
  • Different rates for online vs retail channels.
  1. General Law - Part I, Title II, Chapter 23N, Section 14 (malegislature.gov). Accessed 2026-01-25.

Credit card funding ban

Awarded
5 / 5
Why
Massachusetts prohibits using credit cards to fund sports wagering accounts.

Bans using credit cards to fund online betting.

  1. Nik DeCosta-Klipa. Everything you need to know about Massachusetts' new sports betting law (WBUR, 2022-08-11). Accessed 2026-01-25.

Problem gambling hotline

Awarded
2 / 2
Why
Includes a prominently advertised problem-gambling helpline number and referral to support resources (low-efficacy but standard).

Publicly advertised problem-gambling hotline/helpline (and referral to support resources). This is a low-efficacy intervention.

  1. National Council on Problem Gambling. About the National Problem Gambling Helpline™ (National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG), 2023-11-22). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  2. Massachusetts Problem Gambling Resources | National Council on Problem Gambling (National Council on Problem Gambling, 2023-11-20). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  3. MA Gambling Helpline (MA Gambling Helpline, 2021-06-07). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  4. Massachusetts - NAADGS (NAADGS, 2020-01-21). Accessed 2026-01-25.

Funding for problem gambling messaging

Awarded
2 / 2
Why
State has some publicly funded problem-gambling services/awareness spending but these programs are generally very low efficacy.

Earmarks funds for problem gambling education/public-awareness messaging (not just voluntary operator messaging). This is typically small and often poorly executed.

  1. NAADGS. 2023 Budget Update: Publicly Funded Problem Gambling Services in the United States (National Association of Administrators for Disordered Gambling Services (NAADGS), 2024-06-04). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  2. NAADGS. 2023 Budget Update: Publicly Funded Problem Gambling Services in the United States (PDF) (National Association of Administrators for Disordered Gambling Services (NAADGS), 2024-06-05). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  3. MA Gambling Helpline (MA Gambling Helpline, 2021-06-07). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  4. Massachusetts Problem Gambling Resources | National Council on Problem Gambling (National Council on Problem Gambling, 2023-11-20). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  5. Massachusetts - NAADGS (NAADGS, 2020-01-21). Accessed 2026-01-25.

Non-integrated Self-exclusion list

Awarded
2 / 2
Why
State offers a voluntary self-exclusion program (low-efficacy but better than nothing).

State provides a self-exclusion program (ideally centralized across licensed operators). This is a low-efficacy tool when not integrated into the gambling user flow.

  1. Voluntary Self-Exclusion - Massachusetts Gaming Commission (Massachusetts Gaming Commission, 2015-06-10). Accessed 2026-01-25.

Mandatory loss limits

Awarded
0 / 20
Why
Not in place.

Mandatory, enforceable, cross-operator loss limits that cap how much a person can lose in a time period (e.g., monthly). Highly effective for preventing bankruptcies.

Inducement / promo restrictions

Awarded
0 / 8
Why
Not in place.

Bans or tightly limits promotional inducements (bonuses, risk-free bets, boosted odds) used to accelerate losses.

Ban on in-game betting

Awarded
0 / 10
Why
Not in place.

Prohibits in-game/live betting so wagers can only be placed before events begin.

Mandatory operator intervention / duty of care

Awarded
0 / 15
Why
Not in place.

Requires operators to stop offering bets when users exhibit defined high-risk patterns (not merely provide links to a hotline).

Spousal consent for joint accounts

Awarded
0 / 5
Why
Not in place.

Requires explicit spousal consent before connecting or using a shared/joint bank account for gambling.

Default deposit/loss limits at signup

Awarded
0 / 5
Why
Not in place.

Requires players to set limits at signup (or imposes defaults) rather than burying optional limit-setting tools.

Deposit-to-bet waiting period

Awarded
0 / 6
Why
Not in place.

Imposes a mandatory waiting period between deposits and wagering to reduce compulsive 'tilt' behavior.

Higher minimum age (25+)

Awarded
0 / 5
Why
Not in place.

Raises the minimum age above 21 (e.g., 25) for high-risk online gambling products.

Strong advertising protections

Awarded
0 / 5
Why
Not in place.

Imposes meaningful limits on gambling advertising (e.g., time/place bans, tobacco-style warnings) beyond generic 'gamble responsibly' language.

Not allowed in app stores (web only)

Awarded
0 / 10
Why
Not in place.

Removes gambling apps from app stores, where the easy access and notification systems increase addictive patterns. In states with legal online gambling, these services would remain available on websites.

Public transparency & harm metrics

Awarded
0 / 4
Why
Not in place.

Requires public reporting on operator harm indicators (e.g., share of revenue from high-risk users, intervention rates), enabling oversight.

Close the Kalshi “investment contract” loophole

Awarded
8 / 8
Why
Massachusetts sought court action to block Kalshi sports event contracts. Joined the 36-state Attorney General coalition to close Kalshi loophole.

State action to block sports event contracts marketed as federally regulated derivatives. Joining the 36-state attorney general coalition earns 2 points; cease-and-desist earns 4; court action earns 8 (max 8).

  1. AG Campbell Sues Online Prediction Market for Illegal and Unsafe Sports Wagering Operations (mass.gov, 2025-09-12). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  2. Nate Raymond. Kalshi cannot operate sports-prediction market in Massachusetts, judge rules (Reuters, 2026-01-20). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  3. Yost Co-leads Bipartisan Coalition Targeting Gambling Loophole - Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (ohioattorneygeneral.gov). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  4. 2025-6-17-NJ-Amicus.pdf (ohioattorneygeneral.gov, 2025-06-17). Accessed 2026-01-25.

Back to all states.