Massachusetts iGaming Debate Turns to Polling War as Competing Surveys Paint Opposite Pictures

As Massachusetts lawmakers weigh online casino legislation, dueling surveys are painting sharply different pictures — each aligned with the priorities of the groups behind them. Within weeks of one another, two statewide polls reached opposite conclusions about voter sentiment on iGaming.

The division underscores how framing — one leaning on regulation, the other on public health risk — may shape the legislative path forward.

At the same time, three separate iGaming bills have received committee reporting extensions until March, keeping the issue alive in the 2025–2026 legislative session amid resistance from labor unions, at least one casino operator, and the state treasurer.

Beacon Survey: 6-in-10 Support Legalization

A recent survey from Beacon Research found that the majority of respondents support a regulated iGaming market in Massachusetts. The survey of 1,000 registered voters concluded:

“Massachusetts voters view unregulated online casinos as posing real risks to consumers and children, and by a wide margin (59% support – 24% oppose) support a legal, regulated iGaming to mitigate those risks, while providing useful tax revenue.”

Beacon also reported bipartisan backing with 58% of Democrats, 56% of independents, and 69% of Republicans backing iGaming.

According to the survey, voters have expressed serious concerns about unregulated iGaming:

• 73% say they’re concerned about the risks of unregulated online casinos to consumers.
• A large majority expressed concern about exposure of financial data (85%), lack of age verification (83%), and offshore operators failing to pay winnings (84%).
• 76% believe legalized iGaming under state oversight is a better way to prevent children from gambling.

The Beacon survey was conducted on behalf of the Sports Betting Alliance (SBA), a national industry trade group representing major online operators, such as DraftKings, FanDuel, and Fanatics, that support iGaming legalization.

Recently, SBA President Joe Maloney authored an op-ed in the Boston Globe defending regulated sports betting.

“The real choice facing states is not between betting and no betting. It is between a regulated environment with safeguards, transparency, and public oversight — and an unregulated one with none of the above.”

While the op-ed focused on sports betting, it emphasized the same consumer protection framing as the Beacon poll.

Emerson College Survey: Majority Oppose Legalization

Just weeks earlier, a survey conducted by Emerson College Polling with a similar sample size reported a different picture:

“With 56% of residents statewide opposing iGaming, opposition among Massachusetts residents age 60 and older is even stronger.”

It further stated that 77% of seniors oppose legalizing iGaming.

The survey emphasized addiction and youth-access concerns, finding:

• 81% are concerned about children and teens accessing online gambling.
• 79% believe iGaming’s 24/7 access to gambling will increase addiction rates.
• 76% believe that casino-style gambling available on every smartphone will increase problem gambling in Massachusetts.

The release concluded:

“Taken together, the findings suggest that legalizing iGaming would run counter to public sentiment in Massachusetts and expose lawmakers to significant political risk.”

The survey was sponsored by Stop iGaming in Massachusetts (SIGMA), an advocacy group opposing online casino legalization in the Commonwealth. Unlike the Beacon poll, SIGMA’s framing centers on 24/7 smartphone casino access, addiction risk, and broader social costs.

Three iGaming Bills Remain in Committee

The polling battle unfolds as three internet gaming measures remain under consideration in the 2025–2026 session: S235, sponsored by Sen. Paul Feeney, and its companion bill, H332, sponsored by Rep. Daniel Cahil, along with H4431, sponsored by Rep. David Muradian Jr.

Each proposal would authorize and regulate online casino gaming under a new Chapter 23O of the General Laws.

HB4431 calls for up to nine online casinos, with a 15% tax on adjusted revenue. The two companion bills call for up to 10 skins, taxed at 20%. All three bills had hearings in 2025, with sponsors framing them as a way to curb illegal gambling already occurring in Massachusetts.

All three bills received extensions on their reporting deadlines until next month: March 5 for SB235, March 16 for H4431, and March 18 for H332. In Massachusetts legislative procedure, that means the committees reviewing the measures have requested additional time before issuing a recommendation — whether favorable, adverse, or sent to study.

Resistance from the Retail Industry, Treasurer

Beyond polling, legalization faces resistance from familiar opponents.

Labor unions representing casino workers have argued in prior hearings that online casino expansion could cannibalize brick-and-mortar revenue and threaten jobs.

Wynn Resorts, the operator of Encore Boston Harbor, wrote to lawmakers opposing iGaming. The other two casino operators, MGM Resorts International (MGM Springfield) and Penn Entertainment (Plainridge Park), publicly stated a position.

Both companies, however, operate online casino brands in other jurisdictions — a factor that could shape their posture if legalization advances.

Separately, State Treasurer Deb Goldberg has publicly opposed the legalization of online casinos. She cited potential impacts on the state lottery and public-health implications.

Goldberg was a big supporter of the state legalizing online lottery, which will launch in July 2026. Additionally, Massachusetts ranks first in the nation in per capita lottery spending.

A Debate Defined by Framing

The stark contrast between the two polls illustrates how sensitive voter sentiment appears to issue framing.

When iGaming legalization is presented as a way to curb illegal gambling, with consumer safeguards and tax revenue, support approaches 60%. When given as 24/7 smartphone casino access and addiction concerns, opposition exceeds 50%.

For now, the iGaming debate in Massachusetts is less about immediate legislative momentum and more about which message resonates more strongly on Beacon Hill.