Why Maine’s Tribal-Only iGaming Model Is Being Watched Nationwide

Maine is set to become the eighth US state to legalize real-money online gambling, after the state’s Governor, Janet Mills, announced she would allow a tribal iGaming bill to become law. While the state’s online casino market will be small by population, both the structure of the Maine law, as well as the policy signals it sends, are drawing attention from across the North American iGaming market. 

Mills acknowledged in her announcement that there were some deep concerns about gambling expansion and increased addiction, but noted that careful regulation was preferable to growing grey and black market online gaming. She also referenced Maine’s Gambling Control Unit, which she says will be tasked with putting in place new rules and standards for the burgeoning online gaming industry and ensuring strict Responsible Gaming policies.

Tribal Only

One of the most unusual pieces of The Pine Tree states' new law is that instead of licensing online casinos to existing brick and mortar operators, the law grants exclusive rights for iGaming to the state's four federally recognized tribes, and each of these tribes will be granted only one license with a third party operator.  

Two partnerships are already widely believed to be in the works as both DraftKings and Caesars Casino widely supported the bill. DraftKings in particular was one of the only national gaming companies to testify in support. Remaining partnerships will likely go to operators with experience in small population or limited license markets, instead of operators who rely on scale or aggressive promotions.

Small Population, Outsize Opportunity

Maine only has about 1.4 million people, which puts a natural ceiling on potential revenue. Though unlike larger states like New Jersey which at one time had more than 30 online casino licenses or Pennsylvania which currently has 21, the state will only have 4 operators in competition.

But it’s important to point out that tourism will complicate this small state narrative in ways that it didn’t in other smaller iGaming states like West Virginia, Delaware or Rhode Island. The state welcomes more than 20 million tourists annually. 

Once inside the boundaries of the state anyone of legal gaming age can place a bet. That will mean incremental revenue opportunities in seasonal destinations and along the coast that wouldn't exist based on population alone. Boston, which sits just a few hours south, has long drawn weekenders into the state regardless of the season, which probably explains the interest of national operators in finding a tribal partner. 

Opposition

There was also notable opposition to the bill, all the more interesting due to the why’s. FanDuel and BetMGM Casino both seemed to center their grievance with the tribal exclusive structure. Which seems a bit odd, but they laid out an argument centered around limited competition and consumer choice that didn’t seem commensurate with the actual bill in question.

Wynn which owns the $1.6 billion Wynn Encore Boston Harbor, stayed out of the fight altogether, perhaps feeling that their high-end luxury customer was not threatened by a bill likely to draw more low to mid-market play. 

Whereas both Chrchhill Downs and Penn National pressed their concerns over actual dogs in the fight as the land-based casino in Oxford is operated by Churchill, and Penn owns Hollywood Casino and Raceway in Bangor. They warned of cannibalizing retail slot revenue and potential job losses. Interestingly, the Maine Gambling Control Board made much the same arguments, but were ultimately rejected by both lawmakers and the Governor.

Maine did not see the high-profile union campaigns that featured so prominently in iGaming discussions in states like Illinois, but they were still there, just quieter. The two retail casinos combined employ roughly 1500 people in the state, and there was much discussion of shifts away from on-floor employment, even if most see immediate layoffs as unlikely.

The Unknown Unknowns

LD 1164 currently requires the casinos to share 16% of gross gaming revenue with the state. That money would be divided up between Responsible Gaming programs, drug treatment funds and some veterans and emergency housing programs, but that can all still change during the formal rule-making process. 

That process will also eventually lay out advertising rules, deposit limits and even which games, such as live dealer options will eventually be allowed in online casinos in the state. It will also determine the eventual timeline for rollout and opening, which leaves many questions still in the air.

Test Case

Maine’s decision comes at a time when other states are once again taking up the iGaming discussion. In 2026, much attention is focused on both New York and Virginia as they reintroduce online casino legislation, and several lawmakers in the Northeast and Midwest are signalling renewed interest as well. 

Tribal governments are also paying close attention, particularly in California where tribes hold enormous political power and already have a constitutional amendment which grants them exclusive rights to land based casino banked gaming. 

So far, both the  Governor and legislature have resisted calls for expanded online gaming, but the Maine bill might offer a new potential blueprint that would allow more equal access to gambling revenue for all tribes regardless of their location or size.

Maine’s iGaming market will not rival that of New Jersey or Michigan or Pennsylvania. Its significance will instead lie in its separation of digital revenue from the brick and mortar physical floors and instead placing online-only casino gaming under tribal control but removed from brick and mortar infrastructure. 

This directly contradicts the hybrid model that many operators are seeking for the future. One where land based casinos also feature a digital footprint that both compliments and builds on the success of integrated resorts.This means that regulators, operators and tribes across the country will all be watching closely. 

If this new model can deliver meaningful revenue without destabilizing existing casinos or their employment base, it might influence how iGaming bills are structured in the future, but should it struggle it will reinforce the argument for broader, consolidated cross channel operations. Either way, Maine’s decision ensures that the debate over the future of the casino floor will continue in the New Year.