Maryland Takes Another Shot at iGaming Legislation

Once again, all eyes are on Maryland as the state considers two new iGaming bills. Last year, similar legislation failed after stalling in the State Senate Budget and Taxation Committee, despite passing the House with a two-thirds majority.

This year, the debate remains the same: Cannibalization or Collaboration? In late 2023, The Innovation Group released a state-sponsored study examining the impact of iGaming on land-based casinos. The study found that between 2019 and 2022, land-based casino revenue declined by 8% in states with iGaming, while states without it saw a 2% increase.

However, groups like Eilers & Krejcik quickly refuted these findings, arguing that pandemic-related restrictions, rather than iGaming, caused the revenue shifts. Despite this dispute, concerns about iGaming’s impact have fueled opposition from unions, responsible gaming advocates, and even casino operators. Maryland Live and Ocean Downs firmly oppose the legislation, while Penn National, which supported last year’s bill, has now reversed its stance.

New Bills, Familiar Debate

State Senator Ron Watkins introduced Senate Bill 340, with its companion bill, HB 17, filed by Delegate Vanessa Atterbeary in the House. Watkins has dismissed cannibalization concerns, pointing instead to the estimated $200 million Marylanders lose annually to illegal offshore casinos. A heated discussion took place last week, but no vote was scheduled.

The central question remains: Will iGaming cost land-based casinos revenue and jobs, or can both industries coexist and thrive? After three hours of debate, statistics, and heated exchanges, the Maryland legislature appeared no closer to a consensus.

Like last year’s proposal, the bill would impose a 20% tax on live dealer games and a 55% tax on online slot and table game revenue. Licenses would be available to VLT operators, existing sports betting license holders, and gaming companies with at least ten years of operations in the state.

Despite some national blowback on DEI, this bill does include some language about seeking "gender, racial, and ethnic diversity" in awarding licenses. However, the price tag remains steep: $1 million per license for five years, plus 1% of average annual proceeds. Additionally, each operator must invest $5 million to build a live gaming studio and meet specific hiring requirements. This is likely an attempt to counter future criticisms of job loss.

To address concerns about iGaming’s impact on land-based casino employees, the bill directs $10 million from first-year proceeds toward a relief fund for displaced Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) workers. Additional funds would support Problem Gambling programs, Racetrack Facility Renewal, and Small, Minority, and Women-Owned businesses. All groups that played a role in derailing last year’s legislation. Watkins has pledged to work with stakeholders to revise the bill if needed to protect union jobs.

The Arguments For and Against Maryland iGaming

Pros

• Projected $200 million in tax revenue in the first full year, increasing to $350 million by the end of the decade. A much-needed boost for Maryland’s $3 billion budget shortfall.

• Regulated iGaming framework could reduce the hundreds of millions currently spent on offshore and unregulated sweepstakes casinos.

• Ensures responsible gaming measures, including enforcing the 21+ age restriction and providing funding for addiction treatment programs.

• Job creation through live dealer studio investments and long-term reinvestment in the state.

Cons

• Problem gambling rates are rising, with an estimated 2.5 million Americans struggling with severe gambling addiction and 6–8 million more facing significant issues.

• Potential revenue losses for land-based casinos, leading to job cuts and lower tourism spending at associated restaurants and hotels.

• Concerns about discretionary spending shifts, as money spent on iGaming might reduce spending on other entertainment sectors.

Maryland Live owner Cordish Gaming led the opposition, repeating last year’s cannibalization argument. However, their presentation felt weaker this time, with unverified statistics and misleading comparisons to Pennsylvania’s casino job losses. Some lawmakers noted that Cordish’s own business has grown in Pennsylvania since iGaming’s introduction, contradicting their argument that online casinos harm land-based operations.

Still, unions and smaller casino operators argue that job losses are inevitable and question whether they will be limited to the casino sector or spill over into other industries. While some iGaming revenue may come from offshore operators, a portion will likely come at the expense of local businesses.

The Road Ahead

Even if the bill passes the legislature, it must still gain approval from Governor Wes Moore, who has previously expressed opposition. More importantly, iGaming legalization requires a statewide ballot referendum.

Polling suggests an uphill battle, with only 25% of voters currently in favor and another 13% undecided. While major iGaming operators like BetMGM will likely pour millions into voter persuasion efforts, state lawmakers may be hesitant to spend political capital on a bill with uncertain public support.

For now, Maryland’s iGaming future remains uncertain. Much like last year, the dice are still rolling.