Washington D.C.'s city council heard nearly three hours of testimony from more than a dozen witnesses defending and opposing online casino gaming legalization, underscoring the ongoing controversy about regulated iGaming.
- D.C.'s council hearing on online casino legalization exposed sharp divide between problem gambling advocates and major operators.
- The proposed bill would legalize iCasino gaming with a 25% tax, open licensing model, strict responsible gaming rules, and an explicit ban on sweepstakes.
- No vote was taken after the hearing.
Representatives from multiple problem and responsible gambling organizations testified that real-money online casino legalization would exacerbate problem gambling, disproportionately targeting city residents least able to afford these losses. Les Bernal, national director of Stop Predatory Gambling, said legalization would simply give the regulated operators greater access to a new group of potential targets.
“This is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank,” Bernal said.
Representatives from FanDuel, DraftKings, BetMGM, and other major iGaming operators countered that regulation is the only way to protect Washington customers who are spending an estimated $700 million annually on unlicensed, offshore iCasino sites each year. Operators said their platforms offered responsible gambling tools unavailable at the existing offshore sites and that companies have a financial incentive to keep customers gambling within their means.
Council members did not take a vote on the bill following Monday’s hearing. The proposal would need to pass through the full 13-person city council before it could pass into law.
Bill details
The measure would authorize online casino games such as blackjack, poker, roulette, and slot-style products for eligible adults physically within nonfederal lands in the District. It would levy a 25% tax on operator revenue and allocate funds for behavioral health, community programs, and regulatory oversight.
The bill sets a minimum customer age of 21. Operators would pay a 25% tax on adjusted gross internet gaming revenue, along with a 2% regulatory assessment to fund oversight and a separate 2% community impact contribution.
The proposal does not cap the number of operator licenses, signaling an open market approach intended to encourage competition. Each operator would be limited to two approved gaming brands unless otherwise authorized by regulators.
There is truly a lobbyist for everything in DC. Some might find it interesting to know that the National Association Against iGaming was founded by land-based casinos.
— Christina Henderson (@chenderson) May 2, 2026
Should be a lively hearing on the bill next week. pic.twitter.com/nTG8Kw61B7
The city’s mobile sportsbook operators (BetMGM, Caesars, DraftKings, FanDuel, Fanatics, and theScore Bet) would likely seek licensure. The uncapped license potential means a dozen or more other iGaming or sports betting operators could also seek to offer products.
The Office of Lottery and Gaming, which oversees the city’s legal sportsbooks, would serve as the primary regulator. OLG officials backed most of the bill's key regulatory provisions Monday but did not offer a formal endorsement for or against legal iGaming.
“If the activity is already happening, the District should be the one setting the rules,” Councilmember Wendell Felder, the bill’s sponsor, wrote in a letter to council leadership introducing the bill.
More iGaming context
Alongside taxation and licensing, the bill takes aim at unregulated alternatives.
It explicitly bans “sweepstakes gaming” and dual-currency promotional systems that mimic casino gambling while avoiding traditional regulatory oversight. Enforcement tools include civil penalties of up to $100,000 per violation, with higher penalties for repeated or systemic breaches, as well as cease-and-desist authority and injunction powers for the attorney general.
Multiple sweeps casino operator representatives testified against the bill during Monday’s hearing.
Responsible gaming provisions are extensive. Operators must offer deposit limits, loss caps, time restrictions, cooling-off periods, and self-exclusion tools.
The bill also requires default limits for new accounts and mandates training for customer-facing staff on gambling harm prevention. Marketing would be tightly controlled, with requirements for clear disclosures, age-targeting restrictions, and limits on promotional incentives.
If passed, the proposal would implement a phased implementation timeline, directing the city CFO to establish rules within 90 days of the bill’s passage and a market launch within 180 days once regulatory systems are certified as ready. Multiple iGaming operators testifying Monday said they could go live within six months of approval.
Today a D.C. Council committee will hold a public hearing on @CMWendellFelder's bill to legalize and regulate iGaming in D.C. The National Association Against iGaming, a new group made up of traditional casinos, says legalization would carry "serious risks" like addiction. https://t.co/PDwPCwJ4uI
— Martin Austermuhle (@maustermuhle) May 4, 2026
Washington would join eight states with legal real-money iCasinos. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Michigan are the only jurisdictions that allow more than five iCasino operators.
These platforms have proved far more politically controversial in U.S. legislative bodies than sports betting, a dynamic reaffirmed by the opposing testimony Monday.
It’s unclear when or if the full council will take up the bill further, let alone pass it. But in his letter proposing the bill and in Monday’s hearing, Felder framed the measure as both a fiscal and regulatory correction, arguing that leaving the market unregulated exposes consumers to risk while depriving the District of oversight and revenue.
“Inaction carries real consequences,” Felder wrote in his bill’s introduction letter. “Consumers remain exposed to risk, and the District falls behind neighboring jurisdictions that are moving forward.”
