Online Casino Bill Tracker 2026: Online Casino Legislation in All 50 States

1. Legalization status at a glance
2. Active online casino bills right now
3. Legislative session calendar and key deadlines
4. States where online casinos are legal
5. States with active legalization efforts
6. States unlikely to legalize
7. Complete state-by-state master table
8. Why iGaming bills fail: the blocker taxonomy
9. Online casino tax rates and market models
10. Revenue data: what legal states are earning
11. Federal law and the online casino landscape
12. Adjacent markets shaping iGaming legislation
13. Litigation tracker
14. Who is lobbying on both sides
15. What happens after a bill passes
16. 2027 outlook and predictions
17. Timeline: US online gambling law, 1961 to 2026
18. Changelog
19. Methodology and sources
20. Frequently asked questions
21. Responsible gambling resources

The numbers right now

• Seven states have live real-money online casino markets: Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia.
• Eight states have online casino law on the books. Maine legalized in January 2026 but has not launched.
• 43 of the 51 US jurisdictions (50 states plus the District of Columbia) have no legal online casino channel of any kind.
• Zero states legalized online casinos in 2026. Bills in New York, Maryland, Illinois, Indiana and Virginia all died.
• One state legalized in 2025: Maine, though the bill did not become law until January 2026.
• Nevada is not an online casino state. It permits online poker only.
• Lowest tax rate: West Virginia, at 15% of gross gaming revenue. Highest: Rhode Island, at 61% on online slot revenue.
• 2025 national online casino revenue: a record $10.73 billion, up 27.6% year over year, according to the American Gaming Association.

Legalized vs. launched: why the distinction matters

This is the single most common error in coverage of online casino legislation, and it is why headline counts disagree across publications. A state has three possible positions, not two.

Publications that count Maine as a live market overstate consumer access by a full state. Publications that omit Maine understate the legal map. This page reports both figures every time. For where to actually play where it is legal, see our online casinos by state guide.

As of Aug. 7, 2026, no online casino legalization bill is actively moving in any state legislature. Most sessions have adjourned. The bills below are recorded as filed, dead, carried over or enacted for the 2026 cycle. Pre-filing for 2027 sessions typically begins in November and December.

Bills signed into law in 2026

One: Maine’s LD 1164. Gov. Janet Mills allowed it to become law without her signature in January 2026, the same mechanism by which she declined to endorse or block it. The law took effect in July 2026, 90 days after the session adjourned April 17.

2026 session scorecard

An online casino bill can be perfectly drafted and well supported and still die because it missed a procedural date. This section tracks the calendar, which is the variable most coverage ignores.

Which legislatures are in session now

As of Aug. 7, 2026, most state legislatures have adjourned their regular sessions. A small number, including Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, operate on year-round or two-year cycles and can act outside the traditional spring window. Special sessions called for budget or unrelated purposes occasionally become vehicles for gaming amendments.

Deadline types that kill iGaming bills

Bill filing deadline. The last date a new measure may be introduced. Illinois’ 2026 Senate companion was filed one day before this deadline.

Committee assignment deadline. Some chambers require a bill to be assigned out of a rules or referral committee by a set date. Illinois House Rule 19(a) returns unassigned bills to Rules, which functionally ends them.

Crossover deadline. The date by which a bill must pass its originating chamber to remain eligible. Maryland’s 2026 crossover was March 23; SB 885 never received a committee vote and could not cross.

Reconciliation and conference deadline. When both chambers pass different versions, they must agree on one. Virginia’s House and Senate each passed an iGaming bill in 2026 and ran out of time to reconcile.

Sine die. Final adjournment. New York adjourned June 4, 2026; Maryland adjourned April 13.

States that meet only in odd-numbered years

Texas, Montana, Nevada and North Dakota hold regular sessions only in odd-numbered years, so 2027 is their next opportunity for any gaming legislation. Virginia alternates between a long session in even years and a short session in odd years, which affects how much time a complex gaming bill has to move.

States where a referendum is required

In several states the legislature cannot legalize online casinos on its own; it can only place a constitutional amendment before voters. This adds one to two years to any timeline and means a bill passing is the beginning of the process, not the end.

• Maryland: gambling expansion requires voter approval through a statewide referendum, initiated by the legislature.
• Colorado: gambling expansion requires voter approval; even-year general elections are the practical window.
• Georgia: a constitutional amendment is required for casino gaming of any kind.
• Texas: a constitutional amendment is required, and the legislature meets only in odd years.
• Missouri, Nebraska and South Dakota: constitutional constraints govern the form and location of authorized gambling.

2027 session outlook

Most legislatures convene in January 2027, and pre-filing generally opens in November and December 2026. The states most likely to see an online casino bill filed early are New York, Illinois, Maryland, Virginia, Ohio and Indiana. Virginia’s 2027 filing carries particular weight because of the reenactment clause discussed below.

Eight states have online casino law on the books: seven live markets plus Maine, which has legalized but not launched. Nevada is included at the end because it authorizes online poker only. Each state below links to our full state casino guides.

New Jersey

New Jersey is the oldest and deepest online casino market in the country, and in 2025 its online casino revenue exceeded Atlantic City land-based revenue for the first time. That milestone is now the single most cited data point in legalization debates elsewhere, because both sides use it: proponents call it proof of a durable new revenue stream, opponents call it evidence of cannibalization. The state raised its rate to 19.75% in 2025, the first material increase in a mature US market, and other legislatures are watching whether that changes operator behavior or promotional spend.

What to watch: whether the 2025 rate increase becomes a template for further increases; the state’s enforcement posture toward sweepstakes operators and prediction markets; and renewal timing on the authorizing statute, historically extended rather than made permanent.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania is the proof case that a high slot tax does not by itself destroy a market. It levies the highest online slot rate of any open-licensing state and still supports roughly 20 competing brands, because the license is open and the table game rate is only 16%. Like New Jersey, Pennsylvania saw online casino revenue surpass land-based revenue in 2025. Legislators in Ohio, New York and Illinois routinely cite Pennsylvania when arguing that a high rate is politically achievable.

Michigan

Michigan is the most useful model for large states considering legalization, because it solved the problem that stops bills elsewhere: it brought commercial and tribal operators into a single framework rather than choosing between them. Its graduated tax schedule, which raises the marginal rate as an operator scales, is the structure most often proposed as a compromise when legislatures deadlock over a flat rate. Michigan is also instructive on governor risk: Gov. Rick Snyder vetoed a bill in his final weeks in 2018, and the state did not legalize until Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed a revised bill in December 2019.

West Virginia

West Virginia has the friendliest operator economics in the United States and posted among the strongest percentage growth rates of any market in 2025. A proposal to raise the rate from 15% to 25% was introduced in 2026 and was not enacted, leaving the rate unchanged. That fight is likely to return, because West Virginia’s low rate is increasingly cited by legislators elsewhere as leaving money on the table.

Connecticut

Connecticut legalized through compact amendments with the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation and the Mohegan Tribe rather than through open licensing. The market is capped at two skins by the structure of the agreement, not by license availability. Connecticut is the closest existing analogue to what Maine has built, and it is the model most often proposed in states where tribal operators hold effective veto power over expansion.

Delaware

Delaware legalized before New Jersey and launched at roughly the same time, but chose a single-operator lottery model. Players access one of three sites tied to the state’s three land-based casinos, all running the same underlying product. Delaware posted among the highest percentage growth rates in 2025 off a small base, following a platform transition.

Rhode Island

Rhode Island has the highest online slot tax rate in the country and the least competitive market. The state traded competition for revenue share, granting exclusivity to Bally’s, which also operates the state’s land-based casino. It was the most recent state to launch, in March 2024, and no state has launched since.

Maine: legalized, pre-launch

What LD 1164 does. The law grants exclusive online casino rights to Maine’s four federally recognized tribes: the Passamaquoddy Tribe, the Penobscot Nation, the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians and the Mi’kmaq Nation. It follows the same structure Maine used for sports betting in 2023. Each tribe may partner with one third-party operator, producing a maximum of four online casino apps. The state’s two commercial casinos, Oxford Casino Hotel and Hollywood Casino Bangor, are excluded from the online market entirely.

Rulemaking timeline. Milt Champion, executive director of the Maine Gambling Control Unit, told the Legislature’s Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee he would build out a rulemaking staff once the law took effect in July and expressed confidence the process could move relatively quickly. Rulemaking must address games, wagering methods, payment processing, security, advertising and responsible gaming standards. Licenses must then be awarded and platforms tested and certified before any wager is legal. Comparable processes elsewhere have taken 12 to 24 months from effective date to first legal wager.

The federal lawsuit. Churchill Downs Inc., parent of Oxford Casino Hotel, filed suit in the US District Court for the District of Maine on Jan. 23, 2026, against the director of the Maine Gambling Control Unit. The complaint argues that granting online casino rights exclusively to federally recognized tribes constitutes a race-based preference violating equal protection under the US and Maine constitutions. No court has granted an injunction and the law remains in effect. It is the most consequential piece of gambling litigation in the country, because a ruling against Maine would call into question the tribal exclusivity model several other states are considering.

The People’s Veto and operator activity. A separate campaign has sought to repeal LD 1164 through Maine’s People’s Veto process; either the lawsuit or a successful veto could delay or unwind the law. Caesars has publicly committed to building toward a Maine launch despite the litigation, reasoning that no injunction has issued. Because each tribe may contract with only one provider, Maine offers at most four operator slots, making it a scarce and contested market entry.

Nevada: online poker only

Nevada authorized online poker in 2013 and has never authorized online slots or table games, so it does not count toward the seven live online casino states. The reasons are commercial rather than legislative: most gamblers in Nevada are visitors who could not keep playing on a Nevada app after returning home, and the state’s land-based properties are central enough to the economy that operators have little incentive to offer a substitute for a floor visit. Nevada’s Legislature meets only in odd-numbered years, so 2027 is the next opportunity for any change.

New York — failed 2026, earliest launch 2028

New York is the largest unclaimed online casino market in the country and the most persistently deadlocked. Sen. Joseph Addabbo Jr., who chairs the Senate Racing, Gaming and Wagering Committee, has introduced legalization legislation in five consecutive sessions. His 2026 vehicle, S 2614, would have authorized online slots, table games, live dealer and poker, plus internet lottery, at a 30.5% tax on gross gaming revenue — well below the state’s nation-high 51% sports betting rate. Existing casinos, VLT facilities, tribal operators and licensed mobile sports betting operators would have been eligible for one branded skin each. The bill died before the June 4 adjournment after Addabbo concluded Gov. Kathy Hochul would not sign it; she remained publicly non-committal throughout the session.

What is blocking New York: no executive support; an unresolved tax rate (proposals have spanned a 25%–50% band); an unresolved license count; labor opposition from the New York Hotel and Gaming Trades Council; and the multi-year downstate casino licensing process that consumed legislative attention through late 2025. What could change it: budget pressure. The comptroller has projected a multi-year deficit in the tens of billions, and unlike sports betting revenue, which is directed to education, online casino revenue would not be pre-allocated. New York also banned dual-currency sweepstakes casinos in December 2025, which Addabbo has described as a necessary precursor to authorizing a regulated alternative.

Illinois — failed in committee, earliest launch 2027–2028

Rep. Edgar Gonzalez Jr. filed HB 4797, the Internet Gaming Act, on Feb. 2, 2026, with a Senate companion, SB 3723. The bill proposed a 25% privilege tax on adjusted gross revenue, allowed each land-based licensee up to three branded online skins under the Illinois Gaming Board, and set a minimum age of 21. Its most distinctive feature was a workforce-protection provision: the board could not license any operator that had cut its Illinois workforce by 25% or more since Feb. 28, 2020, a direct attempt to neutralize union opposition. It did not work. HB 4797 was re-referred to the Rules Committee March 27 under House Rule 19(a), which functionally ended it. The 2025 version met the same fate.

What is blocking Illinois: the video gaming terminal industry, which has VGTs in bars and truck stops statewide and views online slots as a direct competitor — the single largest obstacle and close to unique to Illinois; regional casino operators outside Chicago; and soured operator relations after the state raised sports betting taxes in 2025. What could change it: a budget gap. Illinois has faced a projected multibillion-dollar shortfall, and legalization estimates run around $400 million annually in tax receipts, which is why Illinois is frequently named the most likely next state to legalize.

Maryland — heard, not advanced, earliest launch 2028

Maryland is structurally the hardest of the near-term states, because the constitution reserves gambling expansion to the voters. The legislature can only place a question on the ballot, so even a successful bill produces a referendum, not a market. Sen. Ron Watson introduced SB 885 for 2026, proposing 20% on live dealer and 40% on other online casino games. At a March Budget and Taxation hearing he projected up to $1.5 billion over five years and cited Virginia as competitive pressure. The hearing ended without a vote, and with crossover March 23 and adjournment April 13 the bill had no path. Blockers: the referendum requirement; organized labor tied to the state’s six casinos; unusually prominent problem-gambling testimony; and competing bills with different tax rates that fragmented support.

Virginia — passed both chambers separately, earliest launch 2028

Virginia came closer than any other state in 2026 and still finished with nothing. The Senate advanced SB 118 (Sen. Mamie Locke) and the House advanced HB 161, both at 20% of adjusted gross revenue, and both carried a reenactment clause, an unusual Virginia mechanism requiring the identical measure to pass again the following session before taking effect. The two chambers could not agree on a single version before adjournment. The reenactment clause is the critical, widely misreported detail: even if Virginia passes a bill in 2027, it would need to pass again in 2028 before becoming operative unless the 2027 version drops the clause, pushing a realistic launch to 2028 at the earliest and possibly 2029.

Virginia’s broader overhaul. Legislators have signaled iGaming will not advance until the state consolidates its fragmented regulatory structure — gambling is currently overseen by three separate regulators. SB 195 and SB 558 would create a unified Virginia Gaming Commission. Related 2026 measures included SB 756 (a Fairfax County casino referendum), SB 579 (banning unlicensed online sweepstakes with civil penalties of $10,000 to $100,000 per violation) and HB 145, the Fantasy Contests Act, imposing a 10% tax on daily fantasy operator revenue.

Indiana — cleared committee, earliest launch 2028

Indiana’s Senate iGaming bill cleared committee in February 2026 and never reached a floor vote. Indiana’s obstacle is unusual: a 2023 federal investigation revealed that a former state legislator accepted a bribe from a casino company tied to the 2019 gambling expansion, and the scandal poisoned the politics of further expansion. Indiana did enact HB 1052 in 2026, which prohibits sweepstakes casinos effective July 1, 2026 — but paired the ban with a pathway for those operators to apply for state iGaming licenses if and when a market exists, an approach several analysts have called the most coherent model any state has adopted.

Ohio — no action, earliest launch 2028

Ohio has two competing bills that disagree on nearly everything. HB 298 (Reps. Brian Stewart and Marilyn John) would authorize online casino gaming for the state’s 11 existing casinos and racinos at 28%, a closed market. SB 197 would create an open market with outside operators and authorize internet lottery alongside online casino. Neither advanced. The binding constraint is the governor: Gov. Mike DeWine opposes giving Ohioans 24-hour phone access to casino gaming and does not want online casinos during his term, which ends January 2027. Ohio elects a new governor in November 2026, and that race is the primary variable. On revenue Ohio is among the strongest candidates in the country, with projections around $480 million annually.

Other active or recently active states

New Hampshire: the 2025 effort (SB 168, Sen. Tim Lang) would have tied licensing to charitable gaming operators; it drew a favorable committee report, then was shelved after opposition from the charitable gaming sector itself. No successor advanced in 2026. Hawaii: permits no casinos and no lottery; SB 1507 contained ambiguous language and stalled in committee, and any reading of it as a serious online casino vehicle should be treated skeptically. Wyoming: HB 162 died in committee in 2025 over tribal opposition; the 2026 session focused on SF 0044, narrowing gambling definitions to close loopholes used by sweepstakes-style operations. Iowa: a bill has been filed nearly every year since 2021 with no traction, because land-based licensees are not unified; 2026 activity focused on enforcement. Louisiana: land-based licensees are broadly supportive, but moral opposition and election-year timing keep pushing the issue back; the state enacted sweepstakes restrictions in 2026. North Carolina: a January 2026 study group reported favorably, but no bill has been filed; the realistic first opportunity is 2027. Colorado: requires voter approval, with even-year elections the practical window; the absence of a filed bill through 2026 puts the earliest ballot question at 2028. Florida: a special case — if it legalizes, it will almost certainly be through a Seminole compact amendment rather than an open-market bill, with Hard Rock Bet the likely dominant or sole operator. Florida’s 2026 activity went the other direction, toward enforcement (SB 1580), with the Gaming Control Commission seizing nearly $15 million and 6,700-plus illegal machines in 2025.

Grouping these states by the reason they are not moving is more useful than listing them alphabetically, because the reason determines what would have to change.

Constitutional barriers

These states cannot legalize by ordinary legislation; a constitutional amendment, and in most cases a statewide vote, is required.

• Utah: the constitution prohibits gambling. No lottery, no casinos, no tribal gaming. The most restrictive jurisdiction in the country, and it has legislated against workarounds rather than toward expansion.
• Hawaii: no casinos, no lottery, no pari-mutuel wagering; durable cultural and religious opposition across both parties.
• Idaho: the constitution bans most gambling; tribal facilities operate under narrow authority and no commercial framework exists.
• Georgia: a constitutional amendment is required for any casino gaming; recent in-person-only proposals have still failed.
• Texas: a constitutional amendment is required and the Legislature meets only in odd years. The 2025 session considered HJR 137 (up to 10 resort casinos) and HJR 134 (statewide sports betting); neither reached voters. Online casino is downstream of first authorizing land-based casinos and sports betting.

Tribal exclusivity states

Here tribal operators hold effective control over expansion through compacts, exclusivity payments or political weight. Legalization requires tribal consent, and in most cases tribes have not sought online casino authority.

• California: hundreds of tribal casinos and licensed cardrooms; online efforts have failed repeatedly, including ballot initiatives in 2016 and 2022. California enacted AB 831 banning dual-currency sweepstakes casinos effective Jan. 1, 2026, and tribes have since challenged prediction market operators.
• Oklahoma: more than 100 tribal casinos; compact disputes between the governor and tribes have frozen expansion discussion.
• Washington: sports betting is limited to tribal facilities, DFS is prohibited, and no online casino pathway exists.
• Arizona: more than two dozen tribal casinos under the 2021 compact; stakeholders appear satisfied with a status quo that includes online sports betting.
• New Mexico: tribal and racetrack casinos; sports betting runs only through tribal facilities and there is no demonstrated tribal appetite for online casino.
• Minnesota: tribal casinos statewide; legislative energy is directed entirely at online sports betting, which itself keeps failing.
• Wisconsin: tribal casinos and a state lottery; the 2026 session considered AB 601 and SB 592 for a tribal-exclusive online sports betting framework modeled on Florida. Online casino is not on the agenda.

Sports-betting-first states

These states legalized online sports betting recently enough that legislators consider further expansion premature. The usual pattern is a three-to-five-year gap before online casino becomes discussable.

• Missouri: online sports betting launched Dec. 1, 2025, after a narrow voter approval, with 250,000-plus accounts active on opening day. Online casino is downstream of that market’s performance.
• Vermont: online sports betting launched January 2024; no casinos exist in the state.
• Kentucky: sports betting legalized 2023; horse racing, lottery and charitable gaming are the established verticals.
• Kansas: sports betting legalized 2022; no online casino discussion in Topeka.
• Nebraska: voters approved racetrack casinos in 2020 and development is ongoing; an online sports betting effort failed.
• Tennessee: online-only sports betting launched 2020; no land-based casinos removes the usual licensing anchor and would likely require a constitutional amendment.
• North Dakota: retail sports betting at tribal casinos; no expansion activity.
• Oregon: tribal casinos and a lottery operate online sports betting; private casinos would require a constitutional amendment.

Land-based protectionist states

Here the land-based industry is large and politically strong enough to actively oppose an online substitute.

• Nevada: online poker only, discussed above.
• Mississippi: Gulf Coast and river casinos plus tribal gaming; operators have opposed even statewide online sports betting. The 2026 session explored online sports betting for pension and healthcare revenue without passing legislation.
• Montana: VLTs in bars and small casinos plus tribal gaming; Montana became the first state to explicitly ban sweepstakes casinos in 2025.
• South Dakota: Deadwood casinos and tribal facilities; voters and legislators have rejected mobile sports betting expansion.
• Arkansas: four commercial casinos, a lottery and online sports betting. HB 1861 (2025) would have expanded licensees into online casino; the sponsor withdrew it and the House Judiciary Committee recommended study, with no successor filed.

No meaningful legislative activity

• Alabama: three tribal casinos (Poarch Band of Creek Indians); no lottery, no commercial casinos, no sports betting. Sweepstakes operators have faced a large volume of resident lawsuits.
• Alaska: no casinos; charitable gaming and pull-tabs only. A sports betting bill, HB 145, stalled.
• District of Columbia: lottery and sports betting, no casinos; a difficult sports betting rollout discouraged further expansion.
• South Carolina: no casinos except cruise vessels; a lottery operates and sports betting proposals have gained no traction.

All 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Columns record legal status, launch date, headline tax rate on online casino gross gaming revenue, regulator of record, approximate live brand count, whether a 2026 bill existed, and whether a voter referendum would be required to legalize.

Scope note: this table covers real-money online casino gaming only — online slots, table games, live dealer and online poker. Retail casinos, online sports betting, online lottery, daily fantasy sports and sweepstakes casinos are outside its scope and covered in separate sections.

How to read this table

• Live brands are approximations compiled from state license registers; they change monthly. Treat them as market-structure signals, not exact rosters.
• Tax rate is the headline statutory rate on operator revenue. Several states apply different rates by game type, and the cell shows the split where one exists; a Pennsylvania or Rhode Island rate quoted without the slots-versus-tables distinction is misleading.
• Referendum required reflects whether legalization would need voter approval. “Compact required” means tribal consent is the binding constraint rather than a public vote.
• A zero in the live brands column means no authorized real-money online casino channel exists, regardless of what the state permits in retail casinos, sports betting or lottery.

Online casino legalization is harder than sports betting legalization, and the gap is structural rather than accidental. Sports betting is legal in 39 states plus the District of Columbia. Online casino law exists in eight. Understanding why requires separating the distinct forces that kill these bills, because each responds to different countermeasures.

1. Cannibalization fears from land-based casinos

Land-based operators argue that an online slot machine is a direct substitute for a floor visit in a way a sportsbook kiosk is not. The counterargument, made most forcefully by former New Jersey DGE director David Rebuck, is that the data from existing markets does not support meaningful cannibalization. The complication is that in 2025, online casino revenue exceeded land-based revenue in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey for the first time, which opponents now cite as vindication. Whether that reflects substitution or simply faster online growth from a smaller base is the live empirical dispute in every state hearing.

2. Hospitality union and labor opposition

Casino workers’ unions oppose iGaming on job-loss grounds. This is decisive in New York, where the Hotel and Gaming Trades Council has weight in Albany, and significant in Maryland and Illinois. Bills increasingly try to buy off this opposition directly: Illinois’ HB 4797 barred licenses for operators that cut their workforce by 25% or more, and New York proposals have included dedicated annual payments to the trades council. Neither approach has yet produced a passed bill.

3. Tribal sovereignty and compact renegotiation

In roughly a dozen states, tribal operators hold exclusivity that would have to be renegotiated. Tribes will not open that negotiation unless they gain from it, and in most states the current arrangement is more valuable than an uncertain online market. Where tribes have wanted online casino, it has passed: Connecticut in 2021 and Maine in 2026. Maine’s approach, granting tribes full exclusivity, is the most tribe-favorable model yet enacted and the reason it passed a legislature that had rejected similar bills before.

4. Video gaming terminal and skill-game lobbies

Illinois is the clearest case: the state has VGTs in bars, restaurants and truck stops statewide, and that industry has more distributed political reach than a handful of casinos. Pennsylvania faces a parallel fight over skill games. These operators view online slots as a direct competitor for the same casual player and have blocked bills more effectively than the casinos themselves.

5. Tax rate and license count negotiations

These fights are worth enough money to stall a bill on their own. New York has cycled through proposals spanning a 25%–50% band with no settled position on license count. Maryland has seen competing bills in the same session with materially different rates, fragmenting support. Ohio’s two bills disagree on whether the market should be closed to existing casinos or open to outside operators.

6. Problem gambling and public health testimony

Opposition on public-health grounds has grown more organized since 2024. The National Association Against iGaming is now a consistent presence at hearings, and Maryland hearings in particular have featured extended testimony about disordered gambling. This rarely kills a bill alone, but it gives cover to legislators who want to vote no for other reasons.

7. Referendum and constitutional amendment requirements

Where voters must approve, passing a bill starts a process rather than finishing one. Maryland, Colorado, Georgia and Texas all fall here. Referendum campaigns are expensive and lose more often than they win.

8. Election-year timing and governor turnover

Legislators avoid controversial gambling votes in election years, and governors decline to sign controversial bills in their final months. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine has explicitly declined to authorize online casinos during his remaining term, mirroring Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder’s 2018 veto on the stated ground that the decision should belong to the next governor. Michigan then legalized within a year of the new governor taking office. This makes gubernatorial transitions the single most predictive event for legalization, which is why Ohio’s November 2026 election matters more to that state’s timeline than any bill currently filed.

9. The missing forcing event

Sports betting had one: the Supreme Court struck down the federal ban in 2018 and put 50 legislatures on the clock simultaneously. Online casino has never had an equivalent moment and there is no obvious candidate. Expansion therefore proceeds one state at a time, driven by budget pressure rather than legal necessity, which is why the pace has averaged less than one state per year since 2021.

Headline rates span 15% of gross gaming revenue in West Virginia to 61% on online slot revenue in Rhode Island, a spread of more than four times. The rate alone does not determine market structure. What matters is whether the state splits rates by game type, whether it uses a graduated schedule, and whether licensing is open or exclusive.

The five market models

Open licensing with a land-based tether. Online licenses attach to existing casino licenses. Used in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Michigan. Produces the deepest competition and the most promotional spending, but requires land-based operators to be at least neutral, which is why it fails where they are hostile.

Graduated rate schedules. The marginal rate rises with operator scale, as in Michigan’s 20%–28% structure. Quietly favors challenger brands on incremental revenue and is frequently proposed as a compromise when a legislature deadlocks between a low rate operators want and a high rate the treasury wants.

Split rates by game type. Pennsylvania taxes online slots at 54% and tables and live dealer at 16%, which changes operator economics at the player level: a live dealer or table player is structurally more profitable than a slot player. States copying Pennsylvania’s headline rate without the split get a very different market.

Lottery exclusivity. Delaware and Rhode Island grant a monopoly in exchange for the majority of slot revenue. Produces the highest state share and the least consumer choice, and is attractive to small states where a competitive market would not support many brands anyway.

Tribal compact. Connecticut and Maine. Market access runs through compact negotiation rather than open licensing, so brand count is fixed by agreement rather than by demand. This is the only model available in most western states, and it is the model whose legal foundation the Maine litigation may test.

Proposed rates in pending legislation

• New York: 30.5%, with proposals having ranged from 25% to 50%.
• Illinois: 25% of adjusted gross revenue.
• Virginia: 20% of adjusted gross revenue, agreed by both chambers.
• Maryland: 20% on live dealer, 40% on other online casino games.
• Ohio: 28% under HB 298.
• West Virginia: HB 4397 proposed raising the existing rate from 15% to 25%. Not enacted.

The clustering around 20% to 30% is notable. It sits well above the low-tax open markets and well below Pennsylvania’s slot rate, reflecting legislatures trying to raise meaningful revenue without inviting the argument that they are strangling the market before it starts.

National totals

According to the American Gaming Association’s State of the States 2026 report, US internet gaming revenue reached a record $10.73 billion in 2025, up 27.6% over 2024. Total commercial gaming revenue across all verticals was $78.62 billion, up 9.1%, and direct gaming tax revenue to state and local governments totaled $17.86 billion, up 12.3%. Online casino is growing roughly three times as fast as the commercial gaming industry overall, and every one of the seven live markets set an annual record in 2025.

Concentration

Michigan, New Jersey and Pennsylvania account for roughly 90% of the national total. That concentration is the defining commercial fact of the vertical and explains why each new legalization is disproportionately valuable: every live market except Michigan and Pennsylvania is small by population.

The milestone that changed the debate

In 2025, annual online casino revenue exceeded land-based commercial casino revenue in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey for the first time. This is now the most contested data point in American gambling policy. Proponents present it as proof that online play grows the overall market; opponents present it as proof of cannibalization. Both readings appear in the same hearing transcripts, and legislators in Ohio, New York, Maryland and Illinois have cited it in opposite directions.

A note on conflicting figures

Published revenue totals for the same state and year often differ, and the difference is usually definitional rather than an error. The AGA’s Pennsylvania internet gaming figure of $3.46 billion for 2025 reflects a broader product definition than the online casino figure of roughly $2.7–$2.8 billion in operator-level reporting. When comparing across sources, confirm whether internet lottery, online poker and online sports betting are included. This page reports the online casino figure where it can be isolated and labels the broader figure when it cannot.

Tax revenue to states

Michigan has generated roughly $3.1 billion in tax revenue from online gaming since launching in 2021. The comparison legislators cite most often is monthly: in a representative month, Michigan collected more than $50 million in iGaming taxes and fees against under $1 million from online sports betting. That ratio, driven by the much higher revenue margin on casino games, is the core financial argument for legalization everywhere.

Projected revenue in states considering legalization

• New York: Addabbo has estimated the state loses roughly $1 billion annually to New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and the illegal market.
• Illinois: estimates of roughly $400 million annually in tax revenue.
• Maryland: Watson projected up to $1.5 billion over the first five years.
• Ohio: projections around $480 million annually at a 20% rate, potentially higher given population.
• Maine: a modest few million dollars in the first full fiscal year at 16%, reflecting the state’s small population.

There is no federal law that legalizes or prohibits online casino gaming outright — legality is determined state by state. But four federal statutes and one recent tax change shape what states can do and what players experience.

The Wire Act of 1961

Enacted to combat organized crime’s use of telephone lines for sports wagering. In 2011, the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel concluded the Wire Act applies only to sports betting, clearing the way for states to authorize online casino, poker and lottery; Delaware, Nevada and New Jersey acted within two years. In 2018 the department reversed that opinion, creating uncertainty for interstate operations. Litigation by the New Hampshire Lottery followed, and the First Circuit affirmed a narrower reading limiting the statute to sports betting. The practical effect today is that intrastate online casino operations proceed without Wire Act exposure, but interstate liquidity pooling, most relevant to online poker, remains legally cautious.

UIGEA (2006)

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act prohibited banks and payment processors from handling transactions connected to unlawful internet gambling. It did not itself make playing online illegal; its practical effect was to cut off payment rails for unregulated operators, and it remains the reason offshore sites struggle with deposits and withdrawals while licensed operators process payments normally.

PASPA repeal (2018)

In Murphy v. NCAA, the Supreme Court struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act on anticommandeering grounds, unlocking sports betting nationwide. It did not address online casino gaming at all, which is precisely why the two legality maps diverge so sharply: sports betting got a forcing event, online casino did not.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (1988)

IGRA governs gaming on tribal lands and requires Class III gaming to proceed under a compact between a tribe and a state. Its application to online wagering, where the bet is placed off tribal land but processed on it, underpins Florida’s sports betting arrangement and is directly relevant to Maine’s tribal-exclusive structure. The Maine litigation does not challenge IGRA itself but challenges whether a state may grant online exclusivity to federally recognized tribes without violating equal protection.

The 90% gambling-loss deduction cap

This is the federal change with the most direct effect on players. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Public Law 119-21, limits the deduction of gambling losses to 90% of losses against winnings beginning with the 2026 tax year. Previously, itemizing taxpayers could deduct losses up to the full amount of winnings, so only net gains were taxed. Under the new rule, a player who wins $100,000 and loses $100,000 in the same year, ending exactly where they started, may deduct only $90,000 and owes tax on $10,000 of income they never kept. The effect is largest for high-volume players, which in practice means online casino and poker players.

FAIR BET Act and FULL HOUSE Act

Rep. Dina Titus of Nevada introduced the FAIR BET Act to restore the 100% deduction. The House Rules Committee declined to advance it as an amendment to the FY2026 NDAA and blocked a subsequent attempt to attach it to the Consolidated Appropriations Act (HR 7148) in early 2026. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto attempted a restoration by unanimous consent in July 2025 and was blocked by objection. A parallel bipartisan effort, the FULL HOUSE Act (S 2230 and HR 6985), would repeal the reduction and restore full deductibility; it remains pending. Neither has passed as of Aug. 7, 2026, so the 90% cap is in effect for the current tax year.

The 2026 W-2G reporting threshold increase

The same law raised the threshold at which casinos must issue a Form W-2G for slot and bingo winnings to $2,000, up from the $1,200 level that had stood since 1977, with future indexing. This reduces paperwork on mid-size jackpots. It does not reduce tax liability or a player’s obligation to report winnings.

Online casino bills do not move in isolation. Three adjacent markets have become the dominant context for legalization debates, and any tracker that ignores them will misread why bills advance or stall.

The sweepstakes casino ban wave

Dual-currency sweepstakes casinos grew into a multibillion-dollar industry operating in most states without gaming licenses, without paying gaming taxes and often without required responsible gambling protections. Beginning in 2025 and accelerating through 2026, states began banning the model outright. Montana was first, in 2025. States that have enacted bans or substantial restrictions include Montana, Connecticut, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, California, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Tennessee, Mississippi, Iowa and Oklahoma. California’s AB 831 took effect Jan. 1, 2026; New York’s ban was signed December 2025; Indiana’s HB 1052 took effect July 1, 2026; Virginia’s SB 579 carried civil penalties of $10,000 to $100,000 per violation.

Why this matters: the relationship runs in both directions and is the most important dynamic in this vertical right now. Bans create demand for a regulated alternative — Addabbo has explicitly described New York’s ban as a necessary precursor to authorizing online casinos. They demonstrate legislative willingness to act on online gambling without a vote to expand it. Indiana’s model pairs the two directly, with a licensing pathway built into its ban. The countervailing risk is that a legislature that bans sweepstakes considers the question resolved and loses appetite for the harder expansion vote. See our sweepstakes casinos coverage for the operator side.

Prediction markets and the CFTC preemption fight

Prediction market platforms offering sports event contracts operate under federal commodities regulation and can function nationwide, bypassing state gaming licensure entirely, while gambling is otherwise licensed state by state. This structural mismatch has become the most consequential unresolved question in American gambling law. State regulators in Nevada, New Jersey, Maryland and others have issued cease-and-desist orders. New York filed a $36 billion suit against Kalshi in July 2026, and the CFTC moved to defend the company with a restraining order, putting a state attorney general and a federal regulator in direct conflict. The AGA and a coalition of 27 states plus DC have filed amicus briefs, and the AGA attributed roughly $1 billion in lost state and tribal revenue to sports event contracts in 2025. If prediction markets survive federal preemption challenges, the state-by-state licensing model that online casino legalization depends on becomes considerably less defensible. See our prediction markets hub.

iLottery, DFS, skill games and offshore operators

Internet lottery often serves as a precursor to online casino authorization, because it establishes the age, identity and geolocation infrastructure online casino needs; Ohio’s SB 197 and New York’s S 2614 both bundled iLottery with online casino deliberately. Daily fantasy sports matters mainly as precedent: it established that states could regulate online wagering products without a federal framework, and 2026 brought tighter rules including Virginia’s 10% tax. Skill games and VLTs in bars and convenience stores are a live fight in Pennsylvania, Virginia and elsewhere; where organized, these operators oppose online casino for the same reason casinos do, and Illinois’ VLT industry is the clearest example of that lobby defeating an iGaming bill outright. Offshore operators licensed in Curacao, Malta, Panama and similar jurisdictions accept US players in states with no legal market; their existence is the most common argument for legalization and the one opponents find least persuasive, because it applies to every prohibited activity. See our guide to legal and offshore online casinos.

Churchill Downs Inc. v. Champion (D. Maine)

Prediction market litigation

Multiple actions are proceeding simultaneously between state gaming regulators and prediction market operators, most prominently Kalshi. New York’s $36 billion suit filed in July 2026 and the CFTC’s responsive restraining order represent a direct conflict between state and federal authority. Nevada’s action alleges the company improperly marketed sports contracts as legal in all 50 states. Appellate proceedings are underway, and the AGA and a coalition of 27 states plus DC have participated as amici.

Sweepstakes casino litigation

More than 100 class action lawsuits have been filed against sweepstakes operators, many seeking recovery of player losses under state statutes that permit such claims; Alabama alone saw a large volume of new filings in early 2026. Separately, operators have challenged state bans, arguing their products constitute skill-based entertainment rather than gambling. Illinois issued 65 cease-and-desist letters.

Ballot measures and enforcement

Maine faces a People’s Veto campaign to repeal LD 1164 at the ballot box. Virginia’s SB 756 would place a land-based casino question before Fairfax County voters. Any online casino legalization in Maryland, Colorado, Georgia or Texas would ultimately require a ballot question; none is currently scheduled. On enforcement, the Florida Gaming Control Commission seized nearly $15 million and more than 6,700 illegal slot machines in 2025, more than double the prior year, and several states expanded regulator authority against unlicensed platforms in 2026.

Passage is not launch. Maine is the live demonstration: the law passed in June 2025, became law in January 2026, took effect in July 2026 and still has no live operator. Coverage that treats a signature as a launch date is the source of most reader confusion in this vertical.

Step 1: Effective date. Some laws take effect on signature, some on a fixed date, some a set period after adjournment. Maine’s took effect 90 days after adjournment; Illinois’ 2026 bill contained an emergency clause effective on passage with emergency rules within 90 days.

Step 2: Regulator buildout. The agency must hire staff and in some cases create a new division. Maine’s Gambling Control Unit began building a rulemaking team only after the law took effect in July 2026.

Step 3: Rulemaking. Rules must address permitted games, wagering mechanics, payment processing, geolocation, identity verification, information security, advertising standards, responsible gambling requirements and self-exclusion. Public comment periods and hearings are typically required, and operative tax and fee figures are often finalized here, which is why a statutory rate should be treated as provisional until rules publish.

Step 4: Licensing. Operators, platform providers and in many states affiliates and suppliers must apply and pass suitability review; background investigations can take months.

Step 5: Platform certification and testing. Independent labs certify game fairness, random number generation, geolocation accuracy and system integrity against the state’s technical standards.

Step 6: Soft launch and full launch. Most states run a controlled soft launch with limited hours and volume before full operation. Rhode Island soft-launched March 1, 2024, and went fully live March 5.

Why launch dates slip

• Rulemaking consistently takes longer than regulators project.
• Litigation can pause licensing even without an injunction, because applicants and investors hesitate.
• Tribal compact amendments require federal Department of the Interior review.
• Small agencies without existing online gaming expertise must build capability from scratch.
• Platform certification queues at independent testing labs can be lengthy when several states launch in the same window.

Most likely next state to launch

Maine. It is the only state with a law already in force. Barring an adverse ruling in the Churchill Downs litigation or a successful People’s Veto, Maine will be the eighth live market. The realistic window is late 2026 at the very earliest and more probably the first half of 2027.

Most likely next state to legalize

Ranked by probability of enacting a law in 2027, based on 2026 progress, structural obstacles and executive posture.

Structural factors for 2027 and beyond

• Gubernatorial transitions are the most predictive single event. Ohio’s is the one to watch.
• State budget pressure is intensifying; online casino is one of the few revenue sources that does not require a broad tax increase.
• The sweepstakes vacuum. Bans have removed an unregulated substitute in more than a dozen states. Whether that demand pushes legislatures toward regulated markets or simply disappears is the open question of 2027.
• Prediction market resolution. If federal preemption holds, the case for state-by-state licensing weakens considerably.
• The Maine ruling. An adverse decision would close off the tribal exclusivity path that is the only realistic model in a dozen western states.

Five-year view

Expansion has averaged well under one new state per year since 2021, and nothing in the 2026 results suggests acceleration. A reasonable base case is 10 to 12 states with online casino law on the books by 2030, with Maine, Virginia, Ohio and one or two of Illinois, Indiana or Maryland the most likely additions. New York remains the largest single variable: if it moves, national revenue changes materially in a single year.

Every material change to this tracker is recorded here with a date. Entries remain listed for at least four quarters so anyone citing an earlier version can reconcile the difference.

How we verify bill status

Every bill number, sponsor, committee action and date on this page is taken from the originating legislature’s official bill-status system, not from secondary reporting. Where a news outlet has attributed an effort to a bill number that does not appear on the legislature’s system, this page follows the legislature. Where reporting and the official record conflict on a date, the official record governs.

Primary sources

• State legislature bill-status systems for bill text, sponsors, committee referrals, votes and action dates.
• State gaming regulators for launch dates, license registers, operator counts and monthly revenue, named in the master table for each live state.
• Federal and state court dockets for litigation status.
• The American Gaming Association State of the States report for national revenue and tax aggregates.
• Statutory text and enacted law for tax rates and licensing structures.

Definitions used

• Online casino means real-money online slots, table games, live dealer games and online poker offered under state authorization. Online sports betting, internet lottery, daily fantasy sports and sweepstakes casinos are tracked separately and not counted.
• Legal and live means a resident can place a real-money wager today.
• Legalized, pre-launch means a statute is in force but no licensed operator has accepted a wager.
• Launch date means the date of the first legal real-money wager as reported by the regulator, not the soft launch date where the two differ. Where a soft launch preceded full launch, both are noted.
• Tax rate means the headline statutory rate on operator revenue, with game-type splits shown where they exist.

Known limitations

• Live brand counts are approximations from license registers and change monthly.
• Maine figures are provisional pending completion of rulemaking.
• Revenue totals from different publishers use different product definitions; see the note in the revenue section.
• Sweepstakes and prediction market status changes faster than any quarterly cycle can capture; those sections carry their own verification notes.

Update cadence and citation

This page is reviewed on the first business day of every month, and out-of-cycle updates are published within 48 hours of any enacted bill, veto, market launch, tax change or significant court ruling. The last-updated date at the top changes with every revision, and every material change is recorded in the changelog. Journalists, analysts and researchers may reproduce the summary counts and individual table rows with attribution and a link to this page; for the full master table, include the as-of date and link here rather than screenshotting, so readers land on the current version.

Report an error

Where a regulator publication, court docket or legislature record contradicts anything on this page, the primary source governs and the page will be corrected. Reach us through our about page; corrections are logged publicly in the changelog above.

Editorial independence

GamblingSitesUSA earns affiliate commissions from some of the operators we review. This legislative tracker is produced independently of those commercial relationships: no operator pays for inclusion, placement or favorable coverage here, and legal status is reported from primary government sources regardless of any commercial partnership.

Legal online casino gaming is entertainment, not a source of income. If gambling stops feeling like a choice, help is available and it is free.

• National Problem Gambling Helpline: call or text 1-800-522-4700, available 24/7 in all 50 states.
• Gamblers Anonymous: gamblersanonymous.org
• National Council on Problem Gambling: ncpgambling.org
• State self-exclusion programs: every state with legal online casino gaming operates a self-exclusion registry through its regulator. Enrolling bars an individual from all licensed operators in that state.

Every licensed online casino is required to offer deposit limits, session time limits, loss limits, cooling-off periods and self-exclusion tools. Unlicensed offshore and sweepstakes operators are not. You must be 21 or older to gamble online in every state where it is legal. See our full responsible gambling resources.