Ohio lawmakers weighing online casino legalization are considering a direct appeal to land-based gaming as a way to advance long-stalled legislation.
- Ohio could prohibit online promotional credits and require incentives that bring customers to its casinos and racinos.
- The bill would restrict iGaming licenses to Ohio’s 11 existing gaming properties, reducing the risk of a fight among operators.
- Stewart said iGaming could generate up to $400 million annually as Republicans pursue the long-term goal of eliminating Ohio’s income tax.
A bill under consideration in Ohio could prohibit iGaming operators from offering digital promotional credits and instead require those incentives to bring customers into the state’s casinos and racinos. The provision is intended to help Ohio’s land-based gaming businesses benefit from iGaming instead of forcing them to compete against heavily financed national operators for digital customers.
“We would say that you can’t offer online promotional credits,” State Representative Brian Stewart said during an iDevelopment and Economic Association panel Friday. “You can offer promotional credits, but they need to be credits for the land-based casino.”
For example, companies that operate both Ohio casinos and iGaming platforms could entice new customers by offering promotional credits at their brick-and-mortar facilities. Ohio has 11 in-person gaming facilities, with national, omnichannel operators, including Caesars, Hard Rock, and PENN Entertainment. Most major operators already have a unified loyalty rewards program for players using both online and retail gaming offerings.
Stewart said Ohio’s experience with sports betting helped shape the proposal.
FanDuel and DraftKings used national reach, promotional spending, and greater financial resources to capture much of the state’s online sportsbook market after legal wagering launched. Ohio-based businesses struggled to match offers that included hundreds of dollars in bonus bets, Stewart said.
The Republican lawmaker’s iGaming proposal would also restrict iGaming licenses to Ohio’s existing casinos and racinos. Stewart said securing their support is essential because the properties have invested heavily in the state, employ thousands of workers, and attract visitors through entertainment and other amenities.
An immediate fight between online operators, casinos, and racinos would make an already difficult bill nearly impossible to pass, he said.
“If I introduce a bill and it immediately becomes this turf fight amongst all the different gaming interests, it’s dead on Day 1,” Stewart said.
Ohio gaming expansion push continues
Ohio, a state of nearly 12 million people, is surrounded by three states with competitive iGaming markets: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.. Stewart and panel moderator John Pappas said Ohio residents can cross state lines to use regulated online casino products while their home state receives none of the resulting tax revenue.
Stewart said estimates connected to the Ohio proposal indicate iGaming could generate as much as $400 million in annual state revenue. Online casino games are typically far more lucrative for both operators and state tax coffers than sportsbooks; Ohio has collected roughly $600 million in cumulative sports betting revenue since legal wagering began Jan. 1, 2023.
That money could become increasingly attractive as Republican lawmakers pursue their long-term goal of eliminating Ohio’s income tax.
The issue could return during the next state budget process, when Ohio will have a new governor for the first time in eight years after term-limited incumbent Mike DeWine leaves office in 2027.
Enjoying Covers content? Add us as a preferred source on your Google account
Legalization remains politically difficult
Despite the revenue generated by existing markets, only eight states have legalized iGaming.
Online casino expansion for digital slots, table games, and poker has moved far more slowly than sports betting. Along with groups worried about gambling addiction, iGaming faces far more opposition from established brick-and-mortar gaming entities concerned about financial and job losses from digital gaming than it did for the comparatively less popular legalization of sports betting.
Ohio’s gaming history adds another political complication. Casinos were authorized through a voter-approved constitutional amendment rather than legislation, and Stewart said resentment remains over the outside groups that funded the campaign and obtained the casino rights.
Ohio sports betting also advanced without complete political support. Stewart said former Ohio House Speaker Robert Kupp had enough influence to pass the measure despite DeWine’s opposition.
Large legislative majorities do not necessarily make another expansion easier. Republicans hold 65 of the Ohio House’s 99 seats and have an even stronger majority in the Senate, but Stewart said those margins can shift policy disputes inside the Republican caucus.
Some conservative lawmakers oppose gambling on moral grounds but could support iGaming if its tax revenue funds parks, reduces other taxes, or supports additional budget priorities.
“A lot of folks will hold their nose if they believe that this is a significant way to achieve other budget priorities,” Stewart said.
Similar complications are shaping iGaming legalization efforts elsewhere. Virginia lawmakers are considering whether the state needs a more mature gaming oversight structure before adding another form of gambling, while Massachusetts officials are monitoring the rollout of iLottery and debating whether online casinos would cannibalize existing products.
Those concerns help explain why online casino legalization has remained limited despite years of results from states such as New Jersey, where Pappas said retail casino and iGaming revenue have grown simultaneously.
Stewart said lawmakers must still reconcile consumer demand with resistance to gambling expansion. Ohio already permits lottery games, casinos, racinos, and sports betting, leaving him with a straightforward question about activities that remain prohibited.
“Why the hell can’t I play poker too?” Stewart said.
