Massachusetts regulators opened a formal compliance case after BetMGM reported that promotional emails tied to Boston Red Sox games reached some recipients aged under 21.
The issue was aired during a Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) meeting held virtually on 12 February.
Senior Enforcement Counsel Zach Mercer said the matter involves BetMGM, a category 3 sports wagering licensee, and alleged non-compliance with multiple state sports wagering rules.
According to Mercer, promotions were transmitted to individuals based on their use of Major League Baseball’s Ballpark app at Red Sox games.
The emails related to eight Red Sox games staged between 10 April 2024 and 25 July 2025. Over that span, a total of 96,167 promotional emails were sent, Mercer said.
BetMGM told the commission it could confirm that 3,803 recipients were aged under 21 as of 4 September 2025.
Mercer also said BetMGM identified 19 recipients on the voluntary self-exclusion list and 25 recipients in a cool-off status at the time the promotions were transmitted.
BetMGM reported it could not confirm the date of birth for 37,632 recipients, Mercer said, which commissioners treated as a salient point in assessing the scope of the breach.
Mercer said BetMGM attributed the incident to a single employee who failed to follow the operator’s internal policies governing promotions. The commission did not discuss further details of that internal process in open session.
MGC to make further review of violations
Commissioners from across the panel said they wanted the matter handled through an adjudicatory hearing before the full commission.
They described the episode as serious given the volume of emails, the presence of excluded and cool-off recipients, and the unresolved question of the ages of a large share of the distribution list.
Commissioners also said the case raised issues of patron protection and the integrity of the regulated market.
Chair Jordan Maynard said the commission’s goal is zero under-21 access to sports wagering in Massachusetts.
He said the regulator would take action when issues like this arise, and supported bringing the case to an adjudicatory process with the investigative resources available to the commission.
The enforcement presentation described several next-step options, including referral for further investigation and recommendations, or pursuing an administrative penalty.
The commission’s public discussion made clear it would move forward with an adjudicatory hearing focused on the incident.
