It isnât easy to promote moderation and financial discipline from the bowels of a casino.
But thatâs what Massachusetts state workers try to do every day, amid the clanging bells and flashing lights of the slot machines.
At the MGM Springfield in western Massachusetts, workers wearing green polos stand outside their small office, right off the casino floor.
Above them, a the stateâs signature program to curb problem gambling. A mounted screen cycles through messages such as âKeep sports betting fun. Set a budget and stick to it.â
The workers hand out free luggage tags and travel-size tissues to encourage people to stop and chat. If they succeed, they give customers brochures displaying the stateâs gambling helpline number and website. They can even enroll them in a which allows customers to set monthly spending limits on how much they gamble.
Outside the casinos, GameSense is marketed on social media and on and websites. Meanwhile, the stateâs Department of Public Health puts its own on buses and billboards.
âThat’s a big movement in 12 years,â said , who oversees the GameSense program in Massachusetts.

Massachusettsâ first casino opened in 2015, and as the gaming industry grew, the state developed what it calls a âresponsible gamingâ program, funded by a surtax on gambling industry profits.
At first, tried various strategies to educate customers about the addictive nature of gambling, as well as the financial risks.
âIt was much more about making sure that there are brochures that are available that explained the odds of whatever game it was,â Vander Linden said.
Since then, Massachusetts has put in place on a booming industry that now includes widespread sports betting. For example, thereâs no betting on Massachusetts college teams, and no gambling by credit card. All gambling companies must allow customers to set voluntary limits and sign up for a âvoluntary self-exclusion listâ that bans them from casinos or sports betting over various time intervals.
A Patchwork of State Policies
Some states have set similar limits to curb problem gambling, but others have very few. In the absence of a nationwide policy, or a national gambling commission to oversee the industry, each state is on its own.
A growing number of addiction researchers and policymakers say itâs time to take bolder â and more unified â steps to combat gambling disorders. They point to the explosion of the gaming industry since 2018, when the U.S. Supreme Court for states to and unleashed an aggressive industry, now legal in 39 states. (Forty-eight states have legalized at least some form of gambling, including lotteries.)
Compared with the U.S., several other countries have the gambling industry, and some experts in the U.S. are looking to them as potential models.
For example, has a monopoly on all slot machines so it can control the types of games offered, and every gambler in the country is limited to losing 20,000 kroner (about $2,000) a month.
In the , most adults are limited to on every spin on a slot machine, and gambling companies are subject to a 1% levy that goes into a fund for treatment and prevention of gambling disorders.
Last year, a report published in the medical journal called on international health leaders to act quickly on regulations before gambling disorders become widespread and common â and that much harder to stop.
But policy leaders point out that the U.S. has less appetite for corporate regulation than many other countries, especially under the Trump administration. At the same time, they warn that doing nothing could pose a serious public health threat, especially now that sports betting apps allow people to gamble anywhere and anytime.
Fears That More Gambling Means More Addiction
Even before the marriage of online gaming and cellphones, researchers had estimated to of Americans already had a gambling disorder, and an additional 8% of people were of developing one.
Some U.S. politicians fear the problem will only get worse.
âThe sophistication and complexity of betting has become staggering,â said Democratic of Connecticut. âAnd that’s why we need protections that will enable an individual to say no.â
Blumenthal has cosponsored the , legislation that would impose federal standards on sports betting companies.
The bill proposes a ban on gambling ads during live sporting events, mandatory âaffordability checksâ for high-spending customers, limits on VIP membership schemes, a ban on artificial intelligence tracking for marketing, and the creation of a national âself-exclusionâ database, among other rules.
âStates are unable to protect their consumers from the excessive and abusive offers, and sometimes misleading pitches,â Blumenthal said. âThey simply don’t have the resources or the jurisdiction.â
The gambling industry is strongly opposed to the SAFE Bet Act. Federal standards would be a âslap in the faceâ to state regulators, said Joe Maloney, a spokesperson for the .
âYou have the potential to just dramatically, one, usurp the statesâ authority and then, two, freeze the industry in place,â he said.
âResponsible Gamingâ Versus the Public Health Approach
New regulations are also unnecessary, Maloney said. The industry acknowledges that gambling is addictive for some people, he said, which is why it developed an outreach/awareness initiative known as â.â
That includes messages on buses and billboards warning people to stop playing when itâs no longer fun and reminding them the odds of winning are very low.
“There’s very direct messages, such as, âYou will lose money here,ââ Maloney said.
He said his industry group does not collect data on whether such measures reduce addiction rates. But he said gambling restrictions are not the answer.
âIf you suddenly start to pick and choose what can be legal or banned, you’re driving bettors out of the legal market and into the illegal market,â Maloney said.
Public health leaders argue that the industryâs âresponsible gamingâ model doesnât work.
âYou need regulation when the industry has shown an inability and unwillingness to police itself,â said , director of gambling policy for the at the Northeastern University School of Law in Boston.
One reason the industryâs approach is âethically and scientifically flawedâ is that it puts all the blame and responsibility on individuals with a gambling disorder, Levant said. âYou can’t say to a person who is struggling with addiction, âWell, just don’t do that anymore.ââ

Levant comes to the issue from personal experience. He is in recovery from a gambling addiction. A former lawyer, Levant was for stealing clientsâ money to fund his betting habit. Since then, he not only has become an advocate for stronger regulations but also is a trained addiction therapist.
The American Gaming Association said it supports treatment for gambling disorders and helps pay for some referral and treatment services through state taxes. But Levant called that âthe moral equivalent of Big Tobacco saying, âLet us do whatever we want for our cigarettes, as long as we pay for chemotherapy and hospice.ââ
Instead, Levant advocates for a public health approach that would help prevent addiction from the get-go. That means putting limits on marketing and on the types, and frequency, of gambling â for everyone, not just those already in trouble.
To make his case, Levant opens his laptop and pulls up a corporate infomercial produced by Simplebet, a .
In the video, the company boasts about getting more people to gamble on sports through whatâs called microbetting during live games. âWe drive fan engagement by making every moment of every game a betting opportunity. Automatic, algorithmic, powered by machine learning and AI,â the voiceover said.
Thatâs the kind of constant engagement that promotes addiction, Levant said. (Contacted by Ńîšóĺú´ŤĂ˝Ňîl Health News and NPR, DraftKings declined to comment, instead sending a link to its .)
Lawmakers Want To âStop the Worst Excessesâ Before the Next Gambling Trend
Some of those gambling mechanisms would be limited by the SAFE Bet Act, which Levant and his colleagues at the Public Health Advocacy Institute helped write.
But if the legislation doesnât get through the current regulation-averse Congress, then states need to take strong action on their own, Levant said.
The Massachusetts Legislature is currently considering the â,â which would impose additional rules on sports betting companies.
âThe goal is not to stop gambling entirely,â said Massachusetts state , a cosponsor of the bill. âItâs to stop the worst excesses of online sports betting.â

The Massachusetts bill includes components of the federal legislation, such as mandatory âaffordability checks.â Those would cap how much money some gamblers can lose. Affordability checks are modeled on a in the United Kingdom.
âIf you’re only allowed to have two drinks, we know that you’re not going to get drunk, right?â Sabadosa said. âIf you’re only allowed to gamble $100 a day because that’s an affordable amount, you’re not going to go broke. Youâre still going to be able to pay the rent.â
The Bettor Health Act would also ban âpropâ bets, which are wagers placed during a live game, such as who makes the first shot in basketball, or who hits the first home run in baseball.
But from sports betting rose to $2.8 billion in 2024 â a welcome source of funding for struggling state budgets. Because of that potential boost, Levant fears that state legislatures will shy away from further regulation.
States may even be tempted by the promise of additional revenue from new types of gambling, such as âiGaming.â That refers to online versions of roulette, blackjack, and other casino-style games, playable at any hour, from the comfort of home.
IGaming is currently legal in seven states, but pending legislation in other states, , could expand its markets.
âWe have empathy for how hard it is for states to balance their budgets in this current political environment,â Levant said, âbut states are starting to recognize that the answer to that problem is not to further push a known addictive product.â
This article is part of a partnership with and .