Ohio legislators have introduced two new bills – House Bill 298 and Senate Bill 197 – that would legalize online poker and casino games, marking a significant expansion of the state’s gambling laws beyond sports betting.
Proponents argue that legalizing iGaming could generate substantial tax revenue and provide consumer protections, particularly for residents who are already accessing digital casino platforms by playing overseas which is a common workaround that bypasses local regulation but lacks transparency and safeguards. Opponents, however, remain concerned about potential impacts on existing casinos and the risk of increased gambling addiction.
Overview of the Proposed Legislation
House Bill 298 and Senate Bill 197 aim to legalize online poker and casino games for individuals aged 21 and over, requiring players to be physically located within Ohio. The proposal is part of Ohio lawmakers’ effort to regulate online gambling, which supporters say will bring oversight to activity already taking place through offshore platforms.
Under the current language of both bills, licenses would be available only to existing land-based casinos and racinos operating in Ohio. The initial licensing fee is set at $50 million for a five-year term, followed by $10 million annual renewals. These figures reflect the lawmakers’ intent to keep the market tightly regulated and tied to institutions already under state oversight.
A proposed 28% tax on net revenue from iGaming would bring the rate in line with Michigan’s, and notably higher than the 20% currently applied to Ohio’s sports betting operators. Lawmakers argue this ensures fair return to the state while avoiding excessive burdens that might stifle legal participation.
Financial Projections and Economic Impact
Supporters of the legislation estimate that legalizing iGaming could generate between $400 million and $800 million annually in tax revenue, a projection modeled on performance data from neighboring states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania. These funds would flow primarily into Ohio’s general fund, with 1% explicitly reserved for programs addressing gambling addiction and prevention.
Advocates argue that the additional revenue could support essential state services and infrastructure projects without increasing taxes on residents and some historical data backs this optimism:
A 2007 peer-reviewed study on casinos and tax revenues found no significant increase in bankruptcy, crime, or unemployment after casinos opened in Michigan, Indiana, and West Virginia. While dated, the study remains relevant as it underscores that early fears of widespread social harm did not materialize in neighboring markets already legalizing casino play.
Industry Support and Legislative Momentum
The bills have drawn support from a number of lawmakers, particularly within the Republican majority. Representative Brian Stewart and Senator Nathan Manning, both sponsors of the legislation, have emphasized the dual goals of boosting revenue and bringing structure to an activity they say is already occurring via unregulated online platforms.
Major operators such as FanDuel and DraftKings, already present in the state through sportsbook partnerships, have expressed interest in expanding into the iGaming market. Industry representatives argue that the bills would enable licensed entities to compete directly with offshore websites that currently attract Ohio players without contributing to the local economy.
Legislative hearings have begun in both chambers, featuring testimony from economic analysts, addiction experts, and gaming industry executives. While the bills have cleared initial procedural hurdles, they are expected to undergo further review and debate before advancing to a full vote.
Opposition from Casino Operators and Concerns Raised
Despite momentum among lawmakers, not all industry stakeholders are on board. JACK Entertainment, which operates JACK Cleveland Casino and JACK Thistledown Racino, has voiced strong opposition to the bills. Executives argue that iGaming would siphon off revenue from brick-and-mortar locations, threatening hundreds of jobs and long-standing community investments.
Critics also raise concerns about accessibility and addiction. Unlike physical casinos, online platforms are available around the clock and accessible from any smartphone, which some argue increases the risk of compulsive gambling behavior.
Others question the high cost of entry for operators, noting that a $50 million upfront licensing fee could deter smaller companies and limit competition. Some lawmakers have suggested that these fees and the 28% tax rate may need to be revisited in committee to ensure a balance between market openness and state revenue goals.
Comparison with Other States and Regulatory Considerations
Ohio is not venturing into uncharted territory. States such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey have already legalized iGaming, each adopting slightly different regulatory and taxation models. Ohio’s proposed 28% tax rate aligns with Michigan’s, while Pennsylvania taxes online slots at 54%, one of the highest rates in the nation.
In terms of safeguards, the bills include a ban on sweepstakes gaming, which has been used by some gray-market operators to bypass regulation. Additionally, promotional offers tied to online gaming would need to be redeemed in person, a clause designed to support foot traffic at physical casino venues.
Operationally, the legislation would mandate geolocation verification, age checks, and other compliance protocols to ensure that users are both of legal age and physically within Ohio’s borders. This approach follows the frameworks used in states with mature iGaming markets, where such tools are now considered standard.
Next Steps and Legislative Outlook
Both bills remain in the early stages of the legislative process. They are currently assigned to committee hearings in the Ohio House and Senate, where stakeholders are expected to push for modifications before the legislation reaches the floor.
Differences between the House and Senate versions will need to be reconciled, particularly around technical details such as promotional restrictions and enforcement mechanisms. Even supporters admit that the bills may see significant revisions before passage.
If approved by both chambers and signed into law, the Ohio Casino Control Commission would begin developing the rules and issuing licenses, with the first platforms potentially launching by late 2025 or early 2026. Until then, the debate over legal iGaming will continue to draw sharp lines between economic opportunity and social responsibility.
