.svg)
With a legislative deadline quickly approaching to approve a state budget for the upcoming fiscal year, it appears the latest effort by two Maryland lawmakers to legalize online casino games will have to wait another year.
Senate Bill 340, filed by Democratic Senator Ron Watson, was discussed earlier this year in the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee. At the same time, House Bill 17, authored by Delegate Vanessa Atterbeary, a Democrat who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, also received a public hearing.
Neither bill received a vote in committee before “crossover day” on March 17, the date by which the House and Senate send over the bills they want to try and pass this session.
The House passed an earlier bill introduced by Atterbeary in the 2024 session, but it never received a vote in the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee.
Darryl Barnes, a consultant and former Democratic member of the Maryland House of Delegates, believes time has run out during the current session and that means lawmakers will have to “revisit this legislation next year.”
A budget bill agreed to by Governor Wes Moore and legislative leaders proposes raising the state's sports-betting tax rate from 15 percent to 20 percent.
The increase is expected to raise an additional $32m annually, while lawmakers rejected the Democratic governor’s plan to raise the table game tax at land-based casinos from 20 percent to 25 percent.
Announcing the budget agreement last week, Maryland's Senate president made a point to note that the budget plan does not include new revenue from legalizing iGaming, suggesting that industry groups may have advocated for online casinos to be part of the framework.
A successful effort to legalize iGaming in Maryland will have to involve getting the “right legislators in the room to sit down and have a conversation on how do we get it,” Barnes said. “Ultimately, where does the state want to go? And how do we protect our casinos?”
The Maryland legislature must approve the fiscal year 2026 budget by the end of the 2025 legislative session on April 7.
Both bills introduced this session had identical language to establish a $10m displacement fund during the first year of iGaming to mitigate potential impacts on land-based casinos, plus a minimum $5m investment by an operator during its initial license period to construct and operate live-dealer studios in Maryland.
Both bills also proposed to tax live-dealer games at 20 percent, with a 55 percent tax on the proceeds of other iGaming revenue.
“Let me be clear, the gaming industry is evolving right before our eyes, and it is imperative that we are a part of it,” Barnes told attendees at a seminar on gaming held at Morgan State University in Baltimore.
“We are having conversations on what we do and how we want to move forward,” Barnes added. “That’s important. So, for those that might think we’re not, we are moving forward in a fair but powerful way.”
Barnes was joined by Chad Beynon, head of U.S. research and gaming/lodging analyst with Macquarie Capital, and Ryan Eller, executive vice president and general manager of Live! Casino Maryland and Cordish Gaming Group, for the 90-minute discussion on Friday (March 21).
Full iGaming, including online casino games, is legal in seven states: Connecticut; Delaware; Michigan; New Jersey; Rhode Island; Pennsylvania; and West Virginia. In Nevada, online gaming is limited to poker.
Beynon said at the beginning of the year, Macquarie estimated there would be eight to ten states likely to consider bills to authorize sports betting or iGaming, including Maryland.
“As of now, I don’t think any iGaming states are expected to legalize in 2025, but we do expect some of these states to legalize in the next few years, sports betting as well,” Beynon said.
Bills to authorize iGaming are pending in Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York, with lawmakers in Arkansas also recently introducing an iGaming measure.
Online gaming bills have already died this year in Indiana, Wyoming and Virginia.
Louisiana’s legislature is expected to convene on April 14, but Republican Senator Kirk Talbot told Fox 8 in New Orleans on Monday that he does not expect iGaming legislation to move forward in the upcoming session despite recent hearings on the issue.
The U.S. sports-betting market generated around $15bn in gross revenue last year across 39 states, while iGaming generated around $8.5bn from just seven.
“It’s obviously a different product, but pound-for-pound it’s doing incredibly well,” Beynon said. “It’s only in 12 percent of the country where sports betting is 60 percent of the country.”
Out of the six casino operators in Maryland, Baltimore-based Cordish Cos and Churchill Downs Inc. are opposed to iGaming. Cordish, which operates Maryland Live!, and Churchill Downs, operator of Ocean Downs Casino, are concerned iGaming would cannibalize their brick-and-mortar casinos.
Eller, an executive with Cordish, reminded attendees that the six Maryland casinos employ 30,000 people, have a $6bn economic impact and an annual tax bill of $1.4bn. He also disputed the notion that legalization was either necessary or useful in reducing the online black market.
“So, what’s the attraction?” Eller said. “Quite honestly, it does increase profits. I can’t deny that. Of course, you know, ultimately, (iGaming) requires less investment, less labor, and less operating costs.
“There are certainly merits to that operating model, but from the perspective of a company that has invested billions into our brick-and-mortar casinos, we see this as a net negative for Maryland.”
Eller admitted that there have been different studies that have offered different results on the impact of cannibalization from iGaming on the Maryland gaming market, but he stressed that “it’s a real thing”.
Beynon said Macquarie believes iGaming may cannibalize land-based gaming revenue at around 15 percent.
Still, he said that a majority of operators at a recent consumer conference organized by Macquarie were in favor of iGaming.
There were also “a number of operators at my conference who are not in favor of this, and they think they are going to lose 10 percent, 15 percent of their business,” Beynon added. “They’re not going to be able to get that back.”
