Gaming Commission Asked to Reconsider Staggered Launch of Sports Betting
Gaming regulators lay aside DraftKings’ request to revisit sports betting timeline
Massachusetts gaming regulators acknowledged Thursday afternoon, but pushed aside, a request from one of the largest online wagering companies to revisit the timeline for the launch of sports betting in the state.
In a letter dated Oct. 13, the company asked the Gaming Commission to reconsider the timeline it approved for launching sports betting, where in-person wagering would start in January and online in March.
But state officials with the Massachusetts Gaming Commission said the company did not offer any new arguments, nor did it correct any previous statements representatives made in the past, including at an in-person roundtable discussion in mid-September held at the State House.
Commission Chair Cathy Judd-Stein asked each commissioner whether they wanted to move forward on DraftKings’ request, and one by one, they said they did not want to revisit their previous timeline vote.
“I think we had a very good conversation back when we voted on this,” Commissioner Brad Hill said. “I continue to look at reports throughout the nation and other places regarding a staggered launch and I feel very comfortable with what we did was the right thing to do.”
Commissioners approved earlier this month a late-January start for in-person sports betting and early March for online. That came after two days of tense meetings where regulators covered everything from concerns about the burden the dates would place on staff to challenges in implementing regulations.
Officials from the company argued in the letter that the staggered launch timeline would “artificially limit consumer choice and consumer protections, stunt the state’s sports wagering market, and put mobile-first operators, such as DraftKings, at a competitive disadvantage to others.”
“DraftKings urges the commission to set one universal launch date for all sports wagering in the commonwealth that encompasses both in-person and online wagering,” the company said. “Based on the discussion during the commission’s meeting, it is clear that the timeline decision was made not for policy reasons but, rather, because the commission believes that it will be a challenge to promulgate regulations in a timely manner.”
Commission Chair Cathy Judd-Stein asked each commissioner whether they wanted to move forward on DraftKings’ request, and one by one, they said they did not want to revisit their previous timeline vote.
“I think we had a very good conversation back when we voted on this,” Commissioner Brad Hill said. “I continue to look at reports throughout the nation and other places regarding a staggered launch and I feel very comfortable with what we did was the right thing to do.”
Commissioners approved earlier this month a late-January start for in-person sports betting and early March for online. That came after two days of tense meetings where regulators covered everything from concerns about the burden the dates would place on staff to challenges in implementing regulations.
Officials from the company argued in the letter that the staggered launch timeline would “artificially limit consumer choice and consumer protections, stunt the state’s sports wagering market, and put mobile-first operators, such as DraftKings, at a competitive disadvantage to others.”
“DraftKings urges the commission to set one universal launch date for all sports wagering in the commonwealth that encompasses both in-person and online wagering,” the company said. “Based on the discussion during the commission’s meeting, it is clear that the timeline decision was made not for policy reasons but, rather, because the commission believes that it will be a challenge to promulgate regulations in a timely manner.”
Commissioner Nakisha Skinner also agreed to lay the letter aside.
“I’m fine with going with the consensus on this,” she said.
A DraftKings spokesperson declined to comment Thursday.
DraftKings said in the letter that other states have been able to successfully stand up regulations for retail and online wagering at the same time and launch both options simultaneously.
The company pointed to several states including Arizona’s Department of Gaming, where it says regulators there drafted, enacted, and approved both retail and mobile betting in less than six months.
Not having online sports wagering in time for the Super Bowl — one of the largest domestic sporting events of the year — is a “mistake and would miss an opportunity to get Bay Staters onto regulated sports wagering platforms and away from the illegal market,” the letter said.
“Massachusetts has a long record of leading the nation in consumer protections, and we respectfully urge the Commission to not let another NFL Playoffs and Super Bowl take place where people are wagering on the illegal market, exposing their personal and financial information and providing no recourse if an illegal sports wagering operator decides to take advantage of consumers,” officials said.
At the hearing in September, DraftKings Senior Director of Legal and Government Affairs Chris Cipolla said the “fairest and best approach to new markets” is setting one launch date.
Hill disagreed on Thursday.
“I think people are concerned that we might be giving a leg up if we do this staggered launch. I don’t agree with that, not with the reports that I’ve seen,” he said. “I personally don’t think we need to reassess what we did a few weeks ago.”
DraftKings officials also said a staggered launch would impact state revenue because most people “prefer placing mobile bets” compared to in-person wagers. The letter closes with a plea for “equality among operators.”
“Allowing certain sports wagering operators to accept wagers before other sports wagering operators creates an unlevel playing field. Instead, DraftKings requests that all sports wagering, both in-person and online, be permitted to go live at the same time, and sports wagering operators that are licensed and prepared to accept bets should be allowed to do so.”
But even though regulators did not take action on DraftKings’ letter, Commissioner Jordan Maynard said he was “still concerned about the equity issues that exist if we do not tie these untethered category three license procedure to the category ones.”
“But to be specific, I’m worried about the information that can be gathered at a kiosk in a category one that can be then handed off to a tethered category three that would perhaps give someone a leg up,” he said. “... But I want to be clear, I do believe that if we open this matter back up, it could change timelines completely. It could actually create a bigger problem for any applicant who wishes to start by March.”
https://www.masslive.com/politics/2022/10/gaming-regulators-lay-aside-draftkings-request-to-revisit-sports-betting-timeline.html