Massachusetts Gaming Commission Receives Dozens of Inquiries on Unregulated Prediction Market Disputes
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission has received dozens of inquiries from consumers seeking help with prediction market disputes and directs them to the CFTC. Chair Jordan Maynard testified on consumer confusion with state sportsbooks, noting divergent rules on college player props, age limits, and nearly $10 million in customer refunds under state oversight.
SCCG Take — Overlapping federal and state regimes create consumer confusion and competitive imbalance. Regulators and operators should track how courts resolve the Kalshi litigation for clearer jurisdictional boundaries.
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission has received dozens of consumer inquiries involving prediction markets, platforms the state regulator holds no authority to oversee. A spokesperson confirmed the volume of contacts and stated that each receives a response directing the individual to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
The disclosure aligns with congressional testimony delivered by Massachusetts Gaming Commission Chair Jordan Maynard. Maynard described consumer difficulty distinguishing state-licensed sportsbooks from prediction platforms that present similar products under different rules.
"We have basically two sets of standards for a product that looks exactly the same to the end user," Maynard told lawmakers. He added that the commission fields calls to intervene in disputes with operators it does not regulate.
Consumer Remedies Under State Sportsbook Rules
Massachusetts has built an enforcement system for its licensed sportsbooks. Maynard's testimony reported 39 enforcement actions involving monetary penalties, with operators paying more than $1 million to the Commonwealth. Licensed operators have also returned nearly $10 million to customers to correct errors.
These outcomes demonstrate the remedial powers available when the commission holds jurisdiction. The same mechanisms do not apply to prediction market disputes, which the commission redirects to federal authorities.
Points of Regulatory Divergence on College Sports and Age Limits
Maynard highlighted specific differences in permitted products. Massachusetts sportsbooks cannot accept proposition bets on individual college athletes, yet prediction platforms offer contracts tied to the same events. Age rules also diverge: sportsbooks require customers to be 21 and older, while certain prediction platforms accept eligible adults at 18.
"Illegality is not innovation," Maynard stated. The commission obtained a preliminary injunction against Kalshi in January 2026, asserting that its sports contracts constitute unlicensed wagering under state law. The underlying jurisdictional dispute remains unresolved in court.
The commission can redirect consumers but cannot track or guarantee outcomes at the CFTC. As reported by Gambling Insider, this leaves some Massachusetts residents encountering the regulatory divide directly through unresolved disputes.
Gaming, betting and prediction markets — the desk’s read, every weekday.
Subscribe →