The Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) is facing a lawsuit alleging it failed in its “unambiguous statutory obligation” to obtain casino data and provide it to researchers. The action, filed in Suffolk Superior Court by the Massachusetts-based Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI), seeks a Mandamus Order to compel the MGC to collect and share the data as mandated by state law.
Per the court doc, Section 97 of Massachusetts’ Expanded Gaming Act (EGA) requires that the MGC collect operators’ customer data. According to the Act, the information must then be anonymized and shared with qualified researchers. Notably, however, the Section 97 statute does not include a completion deadline.
PHAI says this data is essential for analyzing casino-related harm and what the casinos and the MGC can do to challenge problem gambling. It argues that the MGC has been subject to the collect and share requirement since its formation in 2011.
In a media release, PHAI president and Northeastern University Distinguished Professor of Law Richard Daynard criticized the delay and argued that the requirement should extend to sports betting operators. Presumably, PHAI would make the same case should the state legalize Massachusetts online casinos in the future.
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. At PHAI, we look forward to working with the Massachusetts legislature to ensure that a similar statutory obligation is imposed on sports gambling operators here in the Commonwealth.
In the 1990s, Daynard led strategic litigation against the tobacco industry, ultimately resulting in a $206 billion judgment.
PHAI Argues Delay Fails Public, Legislators
PHAI’s complaint highlights that Section 97 of the EGA represents a “first-in-the-nation commitment” to compile and analyze gambling data with the intent to minimize harm. However, it says the MGC has “failed to comply with its obligations.”
The organization says it requested anonymized patron data from the MGC in 2022 and again in February of this year, to no result.
PHAI argues that failure deprives the public, Massachusetts legislators, and even the MGC of critical intelligence.
Due to the Commission’s longstanding failure to comply with its mandatory obligation to collect and provide this data to researchers, the Petitioner and the public have been denied important evidence for understanding and developing strategies to reduce the negative health impact caused by the licensees’ products to certain gaming customers. In turn, the Commission has deprived the Legislature—as well as the Commission itself—of critical gaming data and analyses that these bodies could use to better regulate licensees’ products to minimize the health risks they pose to the public.
Dr. Harry Levant, PHAI’s director of gambling policy, further spoke to the potential the data offers.
As a researcher exploring the public health impact of gambling, I know that anonymous player data has the potential to give us ways of reducing the harm that casino products can cause. The lessons that this data might teach us would be important to better regulate gambling in Massachusetts and wherever these casino games are available.
PHAI’s MGC lawsuit is just its latest challenge to the gambling industry.
Last December, PHAI filed a class action against DraftKings over misleading advertising. In August, a judge denied a DraftKings dismissal motion, allowing the case to proceed.
The organization also supports the Safe Bet Act, which would establish federal guidelines for US gambling.
MGC Expects to Select Data Provider Soon
The MGC now has 20 days from the lawsuit’s date of filing to submit a response explaining why a Mandanus Order is unnecessary.
The MGC declined to comment, citing an organizational policy not to comment on pending litigation.
However, Mark Vander Linden, MGC’s director of research and responsible gaming, provided an update on the project at a September Commission meeting. Vander Linden acknowledged that MGC had yet to anonymize or distribute the data and cited the pandemic as one reason for the delay.
He added that the MGC continued working on the project and expects to complete its selection of an anonymization and storage provider in the next few weeks.
Several obstacles, including the global COVID-19 pandemic, have created delays and a revision to the initial approach. However, the MGC research team continued to work internally and externally on solutions to bring this project to life. Since July 2023, work to consider the various fiscal, technical, legal, and security considerations has taken place to identify a partner to store, anonymize, and make this data available to qualified researchers. We anticipate the selection of a partner will be finalized and announced before December 1, 2024.
In its release, PHAI’s executive director, Mark Gottlieb, critiqued the delay and questioned the new timeline.
The requirement for the Gaming Commission to make this important research data available has been in place since the day the Commission was created more than a decade ago. All of our casinos have been operating for half a decade and only now–after two years of nudging from PHAI–the Commission finally claims to be getting closer to meeting its obligations.
About the Author
