Massachusetts’ consideration of legal online casino gaming is becoming more complicated as senior state officials voice opposition, despite mounting fiscal pressure on lawmakers to identify new revenue sources. While online casino legislation remains under review on Beacon Hill, comments from Treasurer Deborah Goldberg and Governor Maura Healey have underscored the political and regulatory hurdles facing any effort to legalise iGaming in the Commonwealth.

Lawmakers revisited Rep. David Muradian’s iCasino bill, H4431, last month, exposing sharp divisions over whether the state should expand its gambling market. The Legislature voted to extend the bill’s reporting deadline to 16 March 2026, postponing a recommendation that was initially due this week. Supporters framed the delay as an opportunity for deeper analysis, while critics viewed it as a sign of unresolved concern.

Goldberg has emerged as a leading opponent of iCasino expansion. As the state official responsible for overseeing the Massachusetts Lottery, she has argued that online casinos would undermine the Lottery’s ability to compete, particularly as the state prepares to launch online lottery products in 2026. Speaking at a recent Chamber of Commerce event, Goldberg said the Lottery would struggle to match the advertising reach of commercial iGaming operators. She added that her opposition is rooted in protecting public interests rather than political considerations.

The Treasurer’s stance is closely tied to revenue projections for the Lottery’s digital expansion. Goldberg has estimated that online lottery products could generate roughly $70 million in profit in their first year, with cumulative profits potentially reaching $360 million over a decade.

Governor Healey has taken a broader view, focusing on the social consequences of expanded gambling. She said last week that she has “long been concerned” about gambling’s impact, particularly as more data emerges on problem gambling behavior.

Healey acknowledged that safeguards may exist but said policymakers must grapple with the evidence now coming to light. Her comments align with a growing national conversation, following remarks from Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, who recently said he regrets approving sports betting and opposes online casino expansion.

Within Massachusetts, Senator John Keenan has echoed those concerns. Keenan publicly supported Healey’s position and has advanced the Bettor Health Act, legislation aimed at tightening consumer protections and responsible gambling requirements in the state’s sports betting market. Muradian’s bill would allow the Commonwealth’s three licensed casinos to offer online casino games, with revenue taxed at 15 percent. Proponents argue the measure would regulate an activity already occurring through illegal offshore platforms.

 

We won’t be able to compete in terms of advertising. So, I, right now, am firmly against iGaming.

 

Looking Ahead

Muradian has previously told lawmakers that online gambling is already accessible to Massachusetts residents, but without consumer protections or state oversight. He said legalisation would shift that activity into a transparent, regulated framework. Revenue estimates remain a central point of dispute. Gambling industry supporters project that iGaming could generate as much as $200 million annually for the state. Opponents, including the National Association Against iGaming, counter that those gains would be partially offset by declining revenue at physical casinos, estimating losses of around $100 million per year in related tax receipts.

As lawmakers weigh competing revenue forecasts, public health concerns, and the upcoming launch of the state’s iLottery, the outlook for iCasino legalisation remains uncertain. The extended timeline suggests that any decision is unlikely before 2026, leaving the debate unresolved as fiscal and political pressures continue to build.