- Members of the Maryland Senate Budget and Taxation Committee today discussed an iGaming bill
- Sen. Ron Watson (D-23) presented SB 340 to the committee, which legalizes Maryland iGaming through a constitutional referendum
- If the bill is approved in both the House and Senate, Maryland voters would decide its fate in the Nov. 2026 general election
The journey for legalized Maryland iGaming took its first steps today, as members of the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee listened to dozens of opinions on the benefits, and detriments, of online casino games.
Sen. Ron Watson (D-23) today presented SB 340 to the committee, which would legalize iGaming in the Old Line State through a constitutional referendum. The bill is the same piece of legislation that was approved by the House of Representatives last year, HB 1319, but ultimately stalled in the Senate.
After nearly six hours of testimony, no votes were taken by the committed. If approved by both the House and Senate, Maryland voters would decide its fate during the Nov. 2026 general election.
More than $1 Billion in Revenues on Table
The bill attempts to legalize iGaming in the state through a constitutional amendment, which must be approved by Maryland voters before becoming law. Maryland voters approved sports betting in November 2020 through a constitutional amendment as well.
If passed by voters, iGaming would not go live in the state until sometime in 2027.
The bill sets an initial iGaming license fee at $1 million and licenses will be valid for five years. Any license holder will be required by the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Commission to submit a diversity plan that “describes the steps that the licensee will take to promote the meaningful diversity among its owners, investors, managers, employees, and contractors to promote equality of opportunity.”
Eligible entities for iGaming licenses would be the holder of a sports betting facility license, video lottery operators, or a gambling company that has maintained a headquarters in the state for the last 10 years.
Most importantly, Watson said, estimates show that Maryland can expect more than $1.65 billion in new revenues over the first five years of legal iGaming.
Maryland is currently facing a $3 billion deficit in its budget. To help bridge the deficit, Gov. Wes Moore (D) recently proposed a budget plan that includes a 100% increase on Maryland’s sports betting tax rate, from 15% to 30%. Moore also proposed an increase to state casino table games, bumping the rate from 20% to 25%.
Legal iGaming will bring in three-times the amount of revenue when compared with the proposed sports betting and table game tax rate increases, Watson said.
“This is one of the few bills to be introduced this session that generates new revenue,” Watson said.
An identical version of the bill, HB 17, has been introduced in the House by Rep. Vanessa Atterbeary (D-13). Both are identical to HB 1319, which Atterbeary successfully navigated through the House in 2024 before ultimately stalling out in the Senate.
Cannibalization concerns stemming from legalized iGaming doomed legislative efforts in 2024 and will likely continue to play a large part in 2025.
During 2024 discussions, a study from the Innovation Group, which developed the report on iGaming for the Maryland General Assembly’s Budget Committees, concluded that iGaming legalization could result in a negative impact on gross gaming revenues for state casinos.
“In all, we observed 2% same-store casino revenue growth in non-iGaming states, versus an 8.2% decline in iGaming states, suggesting a cannibalization rate of approximately 10% of casino gaming revenue,” the report authors wrote.
While another study from Eilers and Krejcik, commissioned by iDEA Growth, put the cannibalization percentage closer to 2%, the damage had already been done and the bill failed.
Watson described cannibalization concerns as a “fallacy,” noting that Pennsylvania gaming revenue totals have increased every single year since iGaming went live in the Keystone State in 2019.
To help belay any cannibalization impact, Watson said he would be open to an amendment that would disallow Maryland casinos from terminating union employees (without due cause) if the facility eclipsed a set gaming revenue total.
“Any casino that implements iGaming and removes an employee does so out of greed,” he said.
However, according to several union and trade professionals, iGaming cannibalization would have more of an impact for retail casinos than Watson believes.
Cailey Locklair, President of the Maryland Retailers Alliance, pointed to the fact that the bill’s fiscal estimate includes a note that iGaming will cannibalize table game and VLT revenues by 10.2%. However, the fiscal estimate also notes that iGaming “does not materially affect other legalized gambling in the state.”
Josh Baker, union rep for UFCW Local 27, which serves 18,000 members in the state, said legalized iGaming will displace thousands of union workers from their casino and gaming facilities. iGaming raises significant concerns over the long term economic and social impact for workers and their communities, he said.
“These supposed benefits come at a significant cost to workers and the communities they support,” he said.
Industry Professionals Have Their Say
It’s unrealistic to believe Maryland residents are not participating in iGaming right now, said Michelle MacGregor, a representative for the Sports Betting Alliance. Recent reports have estimated that Marylanders spend more than $7 billion annually in illegal gaming markets.
These are illegal, unregulated markets that offer no consumer protections or tax revenues for residents and the state, she said.
Shawn Fluharty, president of the National Council of Legislators from Gaming States (NCLGS) and a West Virginia delegate, showed committee members in real-time just how easy it is to reach one of the illegal gaming sites. In less than two minutes he was able to log on to an illegal gaming site, which allows for real money online gambling and payouts, all from the committee floor.
A former leader of the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement tried to soothe cannibalization concerns as well. David L. Rebuck, former director of the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, said iGaming was complimentary to all forms of gaming in the state over his 13 years of experience. None of the state brick-and-mortar casinos experienced any cannibalization from iGaming.
However, not all shared Rebuck’s rosy outlook on iGaming’s future.
Rob Garagiola, a principal for Compass Government Relations and a representative for Live! Casino, described the bill as a net negative for Maryland. Live! Casino has invested more than $900 million in the community through its casino and has brought more than 300 new jobs into the state and has shown what it takes to invest in the state and its community, he said.
However, iGaming exports money out of the state. He noted that Live! Casinos could absolutely be an iGaming leader in Maryland through its partnership with industry leader FanDuel, but believes the impact on the state would be a negative one overall.
The bill does not calculate the social costs of legalized iGaming. Increased problem gaming rates, increased calls to problem gaming hotlines, and increased societal costs would result from its legalization, he said.
iGaming Expansion Too Risky for Problem Gaming
In addition to the economic impacts of iGaming, the expansion of gaming in Maryland would have societal impacts as well, several said during the hearing.
Brianne Doura Schawohl, founder of a consulting group that specializes in problem and responsible gambling issues, testified that research shows individuals with problem gaming habits are 15-times more likely to die by suicide. There are more than 9 million Americans that struggle with a gambling addiction.
New Jersey, which is often heralded as the gold standard for iGaming in the country, has a 6% problem gaming rate among its residents, she said.
Several representatives from the Maryland Center of Excellence on Problem Gambling spoke out against the bill, noting that iGaming legalization would undoubtedly increase problem gaming rates in Maryland and increase the need for treatment programs in the state.
The state of Maryland is currently in the midst of a thorough examination of iGaming legislation, as a committee has been formed to delve into the potential impacts and benefits of legalizing online gambling within the state. This move comes as many states across the country are beginning to explore the possibility of regulating iGaming as a means of generating revenue and providing consumers with a safe and regulated online gaming experience.
The committee, made up of lawmakers, industry experts, and other stakeholders, is tasked with studying the various aspects of iGaming legislation, including the potential economic impact, consumer protections, and regulatory framework that would need to be put in place. The goal of the committee is to gather as much information as possible in order to make an informed decision on whether or not to move forward with legalizing online gambling in Maryland.
One of the key considerations for the committee is the potential economic benefits of iGaming. Proponents of legalizing online gambling argue that it could bring in significant revenue for the state, as well as create new jobs and opportunities for businesses in the gaming industry. However, opponents raise concerns about the potential negative social impacts of online gambling, such as addiction and problem gambling.
In addition to economic considerations, the committee is also examining the issue of consumer protections. One of the main goals of regulating iGaming is to ensure that consumers are protected from fraudulent or unscrupulous operators. This includes implementing measures such as age verification, responsible gaming tools, and strict licensing requirements for operators.
Another important aspect of the committee’s examination is the regulatory framework that would need to be put in place in order to oversee and enforce iGaming legislation. This includes determining which state agency would be responsible for regulating online gambling, as well as establishing guidelines for licensing and oversight.
Overall, the Maryland committee’s examination of iGaming legislation is a complex and multifaceted process that requires careful consideration of a wide range of factors. By gathering input from a variety of stakeholders and experts, the committee hopes to make an informed decision on whether or not to move forward with legalizing online gambling in the state.
