Massachusetts has the revenue needs, regulated gambling infrastructure and population to make it a closely watched iGaming candidate.
What it lacks, however, is not unique: speed to market.
Rep. David Muradian highlighted how his stalled effort from this session could evolve heading into 2027 during an iDevelopment and Economic Association webinar this month. Muradian introduced House Bill 4431 in 2025, and the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies sent the bill to study earlier this year.
The bill would have authorized iGaming under the Massachusetts Gaming Commission and allowed each of the state’s three licensed casinos to operate up to three online brands. It also set a 15% tax rate on gross online gaming revenue and banned sweepstakes casinos.
While Muradian will continue to champion iGaming in the next session, Massachusetts illustrates a broader problem for iGaming advocates. The state likely needs the new tax revenue but lawmakers are still deciding whether risks to the lottery, brick-and-mortar casinos and consumers outweigh the benefits. He expected the issue to be slow to come together, acknowledging it needs to be done right.
“Policy just takes time,” Muradian said, noting that lawmakers file roughly 6,000 bills over a two-year cycle and pass only 300 to 500. “The legislative process is deliberate in its difficulty to pass a bill.
“We want public input, the committee process and from there you create a good product.”
Tax revenue alone not enough to sway
Muradian, a Republican, said Massachusetts has a fiscal case for considering iGaming.
He pointed to the state’s “Taxachusetts” reputation and said the Massachusetts budget has increased from roughly $36bn to $61bn during his 12 years in office. That growth, he said, reflects specific policy goals and mandates that require public funding.
Muradian said iGaming was among the ideas considered as a potential way to help address revenue gaps created by new funding needs.
He said a regulated iGaming market would generate tax revenue, move consumers away from offshore or unregulated products, and place more activity under a strong state regulatory agency. Estimates attached to Muradian’s proposal suggested it could generate as much as $200m annually.
Existing gaming interests remain divided
But lawmakers have to consider more than just revenue as they look to expand the state’s gambling ecosystem, as opposition to iGaming expansion comes from more than anti-gambling advocates.
Wynn Resorts, which operates Encore Boston Harbor, opposed iGaming legalization, warning that at-home casino play could cannibalize retail revenue at the property and reduce tax collections tied to land-based casino activity. State Treasurer Deb Goldberg also opposed expansion, raising concerns about competition with the Massachusetts Lottery as it moves toward online products.
Muradian said iGaming is a way to regulate activity already occurring through offshore websites and unregulated operators. A renewed proposal will likely confront cannibalization directly, he said.
A different path forward
Massachusetts already has casino gaming and online sports betting, and it has one of the most active state regulators. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission would oversee iGaming.
But the 2026 legislative result suggests the next iGaming effort will need to be less about whether the state is technologically or legally capable of regulating iGaming.
Muradian said it will be more about showcasing that iGaming can complement rather than erode existing products, giving consumer protection advocates enforceable safeguards and explaining to a skeptical public why a regulated market offers a better outcome than the existing offshore and unregulated alternatives.
All of that will require the industry and proponents to be transparent about all facets.
“[We need to] be forthcoming with the benefits of the industry, but some of the precautions that you can live with and scale back from,” Muradian said. “Tell both sides of the story.”
