Audit Reveals Shortcomings in Massachusetts Gaming Commission’s Oversight
Audit Highlights Concerns in Massachusetts Casino and Sports Betting Oversight
A recent examination of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission’s activities has brought to light significant concerns about how the agency manages the operations of casinos and the rapidly growing sports betting market in the state. Conducted by State Auditor Diana DiZoglio’s office, the review covered the period from July 2020 through June 2023. It identified several issues that could jeopardize player safety and reduce public confidence in the regulatory system.
Shortcomings in Monitoring Sports Betting Advertisements and Support Initiatives
One major issue identified was the lack of oversight regarding sports betting advertisements before they went public. The audit found that numerous ads failed to include the state’s problem gambling helpline contact information, and many promotions were sent to underage individuals or those identified as vulnerable due to gambling addiction. These actions violated state regulations and raised concerns among advocates for responsible gambling about the risk of aggressive marketing targeting susceptible groups.
Additionally, the commission’s GameSense program—designed to support individuals at risk of gambling-related harm—was criticized. Half of the employees reviewed did not have verified completion of required training, raising doubts about their readiness to assist patrons effectively.
Other audit findings focused on the commission’s transparency, particularly regarding employee settlements. The absence of accountability procedures for these settlements raised fears that taxpayer funds might be used to resolve internal disputes quietly, potentially shielding misconduct from public scrutiny. Auditor DiZoglio emphasized that such practices harm trust in state institutions and advocated for reforms to improve openness.
Issues with Casino Reporting and Regulatory Response
The audit further revealed controversy over monthly win-loss reports that casinos are mandated by law to provide to rewards club members. Although the 2011 law specifies these statements be mailed to members’ physical addresses, the commission later permitted delivery via email. This policy shift has triggered two class-action lawsuits against MGM Springfield and Plainridge Park Casino, with critics arguing that electronic notifications can be easily overlooked, leaving players without a clear understanding of their gambling activities.
In response, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission acknowledged the audit results and pledged improvements. They have engaged an external auditor to oversee advertising compliance and begun maintaining certification records for GameSense personnel. Thomas Mills, a spokesperson for the commission, expressed confidence that implementing the audit’s recommendations would strengthen the commission’s regulatory capabilities.
Despite these commitments, public health experts remain skeptical, suggesting that the commission’s reluctance to enforce stricter regulations benefits the gambling industry at the expense of consumers. Meanwhile, state legislators are considering new bills aiming to further restrict gambling advertising, though these proposals are still in preliminary stages. Auditor DiZoglio’s office plans to conduct a follow-up review in six months to assess progress on the recommended changes.
