The Massachusetts Gaming Commission has directed staff to evaluate how sports betting operators in the state use artificial intelligence and machine learning, following a New York Times report examining DraftKings’ promotional targeting practices. No fine, settlement or licence action has been announced; the commission has ordered a fact-finding review rather than imposed a penalty.
The New York Times investigation alleged that DraftKings used AI and machine learning to intentionally direct promotions toward bettors most likely to lose. The report drew on interviews with roughly 40 former DraftKings employees, along with internal research memos, Slack messages and customer betting records, and described a metric the operator internally called “elasticity” to estimate how much more a customer might wager in response to a targeted offer. These remain allegations from the newspaper’s reporting rather than findings established by the MGC.
MGC Chairman Jordan Maynard said the commission shares concern over how rapidly these technologies are evolving and how they are applied in gambling. He has asked Executive Director Dean Serpa and commission staff to engage directly with DraftKings to understand the specifics reported by the newspaper, and to examine how all licensed operators in the state – not just DraftKings – are currently deploying AI and machine-learning tools. Maynard indicated that any further action or policymaking would be determined by the commission if and when appropriate.
Existing oversight groundwork
The review does not start from scratch. The MGC has commissioned a study from the University of Nevada Las Vegas’s International Gaming Institute focused on AI’s role in marketing, player acquisition, responsible-gambling tools and player health, and has since formed an AI task force to monitor the technology’s use across the state’s gaming industry. Commissioner Paul Brodeur described the New York Times report as troubling and said he was concerned that AI could be used to exploit customers, while noting that Massachusetts is among the few states, if not the only one, whose gaming rules make specific reference to artificial intelligence.
Brodeur also framed the issue more broadly, observing that AI-driven customer targeting is not unique to gambling but runs across retail industries generally. That context matters for how the commission ultimately calibrates any standards it develops, particularly as regulators elsewhere have begun scrutinizing AI-generated marketing content, as seen in the ASA’s ruling against a Midnite TikTok advertisement.
Implications for operators and suppliers
The MGC’s review extends beyond DraftKings to cover all Massachusetts-licensed sports betting operators, and its findings could eventually inform standards applicable to both operators and the technology providers supplying them, a dynamic already visible in how suppliers like Kambi have expanded AI-driven sports betting technology across the Americas. No further action has been announced at this stage.
According to the New York Times, whose investigation prompted the commission’s decision, the review concerns the practices described in that reporting. The commission has said any further action or policymaking will be determined when or if appropriate.
When he is not analysing the latest compliance updates or dissecting quarterly operator results, Florian follows Bundesliga football closely and maintains a healthy skepticism toward anyone claiming to have cracked a winning betting system. He brings a grounded, insider-aware perspective to his writing and is always more interested in the structural story behind the headline than the headline itself.