Sportsbooks don't want you to know how they impose limits on you.
Massachusetts lawmakers held a roundtable Tuesday in an attempt to gain insight into how sportsbook operators impose limits on the betting public.
The majority of those operators didn’t show up.
According to multiple reports from the informal hearing, members of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) were left frustrated and angry by the absence of all but one of the state’s sportsbook operators.
Correspondence from FanDuel, DraftKings, Caesars and Fanatics, shared by XLMedia’s Robert Linnehan, revealed the operators declined because they didn’t think it was possible to discuss limits in a public forum without sharing proprietary trade secrets.
In other words, they don’t intend to ever make it known how they impose limits. Transparency on this issue won’t happen unless and until regulators force it.
Responses from FanDuel, DraftKings, Caesars, and Fanatics. pic.twitter.com/5PiePqpQLf
— RLinnehanXL (@RLinnehanXl) May 21, 2024
For those unaware, sportsbooks have the power to impose limits on the types of bets and amount of money people can wager, seemingly without much rhyme or reason. And they occasionally use that power. In 2022, I wrote about the unethical practice of “sacking” customers for winning too much after a Washington Post story profiled a bettor who couldn’t wager more than $100 after winning $50,000 the previous day.
According to Justin Black, a spokesperson for Bally’s — the one sportsbook operator that did show to Tuesday’s meeting — bettors aren’t limited based on winning, but other underlying factors. But apparently those factors vary from operator to operator, and we’ll never know what they are because the industry refuses to be transparent on the subject.
Justin Black, spokesperson for Bally's Interactive, noted that Bally's does not limit patrons based on winning, but on other underlying, proprietary factors.
— RLinnehanXL (@RLinnehanXl) May 21, 2024
This shouldn’t be allowed, even if the majority of bettors never have to worry about being limited. If sportsbooks are able to single out bettors for doing nothing but playing within rules the operators themselves designed, those same bettors deserve to know what the criteria is for being singled out.
The MGC is doing the right thing by trying to get to the bottom of it. If the sportsbooks don’t start playing ball, the next step might just be for regulators to ban the practice of limiting customers altogether. I’m sure that’s something operators will work to avoid at all costs.
