Maryland Lawmakers Hold Marathon Hearing on Online Casino Bill

Big Operators vs. Smaller Gaming Businesses

One of the most contentious points in the iGaming discussion is who should get online casino licenses. Major operators like BetMGM and DraftKings strongly support iGaming, arguing that it would increase state revenues and provide a legal alternative to offshore gambling sites.

However, mid-sized companies such as Cordish Companies and Penn Entertainment expressed concerns. They fear that online casinos could hurt brick-and-mortar locations, which rely on in-person visits to generate revenue. Penn Entertainment signaled potential support for HB 17, but only if licenses were limited to Maryland’s six existing casinos.

Meanwhile, smaller gaming businesses, including bingo halls and off-track betting (OTB) locations, pushed for a more open licensing system. They argued that linking iGaming licenses only to casinos would shut them out of the market, making it impossible for them to compete.

Concerns Over Gambling Addiction and Consumer Protection

Another major topic was the impact on problem gambling. Opponents of the bill pointed to studies showing that iGaming players are more likely to develop gambling addiction compared to those who gamble in person.

They warned that making casino games available online, 24/7, could lead to a higher number of problem gamblers in the state.

Supporters, however, argued that a regulated market would offer better consumer protections than the unregulated black market. By legalizing iGaming, Maryland could require operators to implement responsible gambling measures, including self-exclusion programs, deposit limits, and real-time monitoring for problem gambling behaviors.

Revenue Potential and Economic Impact

Proponents of HB 17 highlighted the financial benefits of legalizing online casinos. They pointed to potential tax revenue that could be used to fund education, public services, and other state priorities. Additionally, they argued that Maryland is losing money to unregulated offshore sites, which operate without contributing tax dollars or providing consumer protections.

Despite concerns about the cannibalization of brick-and-mortar casinos, some lawmakers pointed to Pennsylvania as a counterexample. In Pennsylvania, land-based casino revenue continued to grow even after iGaming launched, suggesting that both markets can coexist.

The Question of a Statewide Referendum

Maryland voters have historically played a role in gambling expansion through statewide referendums. While previous gambling expansions, such as the legalization of casinos and sports betting, required voter approval, lawmakers are now debating whether another referendum is necessary for iGaming.

Atterbeary suggested that prior referendums may already cover the issue, but the current bill includes a provision for a 2026 public vote.

Even with support in the House, the bill faces major challenges in the Senate. Senate President Bill Ferguson has expressed doubts about iGaming’s economic impact and its potential to harm existing casinos.

Without Senate backing, legalization in 2025 appears unlikely.

Additionally, Maryland Governor Wes Moore has not yet taken a public stance on the issue. His position could influence the bill’s chances of passing.

With no clear consensus, Maryland’s iGaming debate is far from over. If lawmakers fail to reach an agreement this year, the issue could be pushed to 2026, when voters would have the final say through a referendum.