The latest lengthy hearing on a proposed Ohio online casino gaming bill Wednesday reaffirmed the difficulty the bill faces passing into law.
- Most speakers at the Ohio iGaming hearing opposed the bill or sought changes.
- The bill proposes steep fees and taxes, sparking criticism from all sides.
- Local businesses fear online gaming will hurt in-person revenue.
Most of the more than 40 individuals who testified on the bill during a three-hour legislative committee hearing Wednesday opposed the legislation. More than a dozen testified as ostensibly neutral “interested parties” but most asked for changes to the bill.
The only two figures to testify explicitly in favor of the bill during the hearing were online casino operators Fanatics and Rush Street Interactive. Both requested alterations.
The Ohio state Senate’s Select Committee on Gaming did not take a vote on Senate Bill 197 following the hearing, its third this month on the iGaming legislation. It was unclear when lawmakers would seek to advance the legislation but Wednesday’s hearing made it clear the bill will not come without a wide range of critics.
Ohio gaming background
In the past 20 years, Ohio has joined many of its Midwestern neighbors in increasingly embracing multiple forms of legal gambling. Along with four “Las Vegas-style” commercial casinos, the state has seven hybrid horse track “racinos” that offer forms of gambling.
Ohio, like its neighbors Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, is among the 31 states that have permitted statewide online sports betting.
Michigan, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia are three of the four states with competitive online casino gaming markets, along with New Jersey. They join limited markets in Delaware, Connecticut, and Rhode Island as the only seven states to legalize real money online casino games.
Online slots and table games have proved far less politically palatable in statehouses across the country.
Critics fear these games are more likely to spur problem gambling and other societal ills, a theme echoed by more than a dozen speakers representing religious and anti-gambling organizations during Wednesday’s hearing. Would-be iGaming stakeholders have also been divided over conflicting analyses about how online gaming hurts revenues and jobs from established brick-and-mortar gaming establishments.
In Ohio, a contingent of anti-gambling advocates are joined by a wide range of other commercial interests with competing views about gaming expansion.
Ohio iGaming bill details
The Senate bill discussed Wednesday would allow up to 11 online casino gaming licenses, all of which would have to partner with one of the four casinos or seven racinos. The Senate bill calls for a $50 million license fee, far and away the highest in the country, as well as a 36-to-40% tax on gross iGaming revenue, depending on the association between the brick-and-mortar casino and its online partner.
For example, a company such as Caesars which operates an Ohio gaming facility would pay the lower rate assuming it uses one of its flagship iGaming platforms. A brick-and-mortar casino partnered with a third-party that doesn’t have a retail presence in the state such as FanDuel or DraftKings would pay the higher rate.
Ohio iGaming bill views from major operators:
— Ryan Butler (@ButlerBets) May 28, 2025
Proponents: FanDuel, DraftKings, BetMGM, Fanatics, Caesars, BetRivers
"Interested Parties": Hard Rock, JACK, PENN (Hollywood), Boyd
Opponents: Miami Valley Gaming
Brandt Iden of Fanatics, one of the two proponents Wednesday, as expected testified in favor of the bill overall but with a lower license fee and tax rate. Iden also asked lawmakers to double the potential licensees from 11 to 22.
Iden’s testimony supporting iGaming in general joined similar support from other major digital operators including FanDuel, DraftKings, BetMGM, and Caesars that backed the bill during prior hearings.
Miami Valley Gaming, which operates one of the Ohio racinos, testified against the bill Wednesday, arguing it would cost existing jobs. The opposition reflected concerns from other smaller and local brick-and-mortar casino companies in other states such as Cordish Gaming that have worked against iGaming legalization and testified against the Ohio bill.
Hard Rock and PENN Entertainment, both of which operate Ohio casinos, testified Wednesday as “interested parties.”
The split among the would-be iGaming operators comes as other Ohio business interests have sought expanded gaming.
Representatives from the state’s bars, fraternal organizations, and grocery stores were among those who spoke on the bill. Businesses such as bars, restaurants, and veterans lodges pushed lawmakers to include video lottery terminal game authorization as part of the bill.
These machines are regulated in Louisiana, Illinois, and several other states. Business owners see this as a much-needed revenue source while casino gambling establishments see them as a threat to their existing business.
The current iGaming bill, among a host of other changes, would also allow online lottery ticket sales. A representative from the state’s grocer association testified against this provision, arguing it would hurt in-person lottery sales.
These testimonies reflected the difficult balance between in-person and online sales in not just gambling but commerce overall. Americans increasingly make purchases of nearly all varieties online, a trend gambling stakeholders argue is reflected in their industry as well.
This reality, iGaming advocates said during Wednesday’s hearing and for years prior, requires legislation and policy to adjust to changing consumer habits. But the ongoing debate about Ohio iGaming reaffirmed that existing business interests fearing lost revenue from these changes remain a strong opposition force.
