Massachusetts Gaming Commission Faces Lawsuit

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) is facing a lawsuit from the Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI) for allegedly failing to share mandated gambling data with researchers. The lawsuit, filed in Suffolk Superior Court by PHAI, a non-profit organization known for high-profile cases in public health law, claims the MGC has neglected its responsibility under the 2011 Expanded Gaming Act to provide anonymized customer tracking data to researchers, which is essential for understanding gambling addiction patterns and informing policy improvements.

Massachusetts Gaming Commission Sued Over Data Sharing Failure

The Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI) has filed a lawsuit against the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC), accusing the regulator of failing to comply with Section 97 of the 2011 Expanded Gaming Act. This section requires casinos to collect and share anonymized customer data with researchers to aid in developing harm reduction strategies and understanding gambling behaviors. PHAI’s suit seeks a mandamus order to enforce compliance, a move that could compel the MGC to implement long-overdue data-sharing protocols.

Key Points:

• PHAI files lawsuit claiming MGC failed to share anonymized gambling data for public health research.
• The lawsuit cites Section 97 of the 2011 Expanded Gaming Act, which mandates data sharing to support gambling addiction research.
• Casinos such as Plainridge Park, MGM Springfield, and Encore Boston Harbor have reportedly collected this data since 2015.

According to PHAI’s president, Richard Daynard, the data is crucial to understanding and mitigating gambling-related harm in Massachusetts. “Not only should this casino data have been made available years ago, but this is exactly the kind of data requirement that should be imposed on sports gambling, which has exploded here in the past 20 months,” Daynard remarked. He added that PHAI will continue working with Massachusetts legislators to establish similar data-sharing obligations for sports betting operators in the state.

Lawsuit Details and Allegations Against MGC

The lawsuit claims that since 2015, Massachusetts casino licensees Plainridge Park Casino, MGM Springfield, and Encore Boston Harbor have been collecting extensive customer data via loyalty programs and tracking systems. However, despite these data collection efforts, the MGC has allegedly failed to make this data available to researchers, violating a law designed to enhance public health research on gambling.

PHAI executive director Mark Gottlieb emphasized that the MGC’s obligation to collect and share this data has existed “since the day the Commission was created more than a decade ago.” The lawsuit further highlights the growing importance of this data as sports betting has expanded in Massachusetts, pointing to a significant gap in the state’s current gambling data-sharing practices.

Broader Implications and Potential Regulatory Impact

PHAI’s lawsuit underscores the importance of transparent data sharing in addressing the public health impacts of gambling. Dr. Harry Levant, PHAI’s director of gambling policy, commented on the value of this data, noting that anonymous player data is key to identifying effective ways to reduce the harm associated with casino products. “The lessons that this data might teach us would be important to better regulate gambling in Massachusetts and wherever these casino games are available,” Dr. Levant stated.

The suit is the latest in PHAI’s recent series of actions against the gambling industry, including a class-action lawsuit against DraftKings for alleged misleading advertising and support for the SAFE Bet Act, which seeks to place much of gambling regulation under federal oversight.

MGC’s Obligation and the Expanded Gaming Act

The 2011 Expanded Gaming Act aimed to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for casinos in Massachusetts, mandating that data from customer tracking systems be anonymized and shared with researchers. This data provision was intended to support studies on gambling addiction and enable the development of harm reduction strategies, yet the PHAI claims this data has never been shared.

The MGC now has 20 days to respond to PHAI’s lawsuit, which could have significant implications for the future of gambling regulation in Massachusetts. If PHAI’s lawsuit succeeds, it could compel the MGC to implement long-overdue data-sharing practices, offering researchers a valuable resource for understanding and addressing gambling addiction patterns in the Commonwealth.

PHAI’s lawsuit against the Massachusetts Gaming Commission highlights an ongoing issue in the state’s gambling regulatory practices. By calling for compliance with the Expanded Gaming Act’s data-sharing mandate, PHAI aims to provide researchers with critical tools for understanding and mitigating gambling addiction. As Massachusetts continues to expand its gambling market, this case could shape the future of data sharing and responsible gaming policy, potentially extending to sports betting operators as well.