Another Online Casino Bill Introduced in Ohio, Legislature Preps Collaboration

• Ohio lawmakers are pushing for a second bill to legalize online gambling.
• Currently, Ohio has in-person casino options but no platforms for online casinos.
• Online sports betting is already legal in Ohio.

Ohio is seeing a renewed interest in online casino gaming, with more lawmakers stepping up to support the cause. Following the existing 11 casinos and racinos, Rep. Brian Stewart (R-Ashville) and Rep. Marilyn John (R-Richland) recently introduced House Bill 298 to legalize online casino games, including internet slots and interactive table games, and online poker.

“We already have online gambling in other forms,” John remarked, referencing Ohio’s online sports betting market. “iGaming is a job creator that fosters technological growth.”

Stewart anticipates that the introduction of a matured online gambling market could lead to an annual increase in tax revenue for Ohio, estimated between $400 million and $800 million.

House Bill 298 aims to prohibit the operation of online sweepstakes platforms within the state. These controversial sites have been tangled in legal disputes and accusations of constituting unregulated online gambling.

This bill follows Senate Bill 197, which was launched in the Ohio Senate, allowing the Ohio Lottery to run instant games online.

Costly Concessions

Under the proposed legislation, only casino operators with a valid brick-and-mortar gaming license would be eligible to apply for an iGaming permit. This includes Ohio’s four casinos and seven racinos, which currently can only operate video lottery terminals and sports betting.

Gaining access to Ohio’s iGaming arena would come with a steep price: each license is projected to cost $50 million upfront, with a subsequent renewal fee of $10 million every five years.

The gross gaming revenue amassed by these online casinos would be subject to a 28% state tax, with 99% of the funds directed to the state’s General Fund and a mere 1% allocated to problem gambling programs.

House Bill 298 advocates for a more controlled iGaming environment, diverging from SB197 by not authorising iLottery or online parimutuel wagering.

As these iGaming proposals unfold within both legislative chambers of Ohio, Stewart and John are committed to collaborating with Sen. Nathan Manning (R-Ridgeville), the primary author of Senate Bill 197, to form a mutually agreeable online casino framework.

Opposition to iGaming

Ohio’s oldest casino operator, Jack Entertainment, which oversees Jack Cleveland Casino and Jack Thistledown Racino, is against online gambling. Churchill Downs, holding a 50% stake in Miami Valley Gaming, shares a similar stance.

In contrast, companies like MGM Resorts, Boyd Gaming, and Penn Entertainment, which have investments in Ohio, show a generally supportive stance towards iGaming.

John counters Jack’s stance, refuting claims that online casinos detract customers from physical locations, where patrons often spend extra on food and other amenities. Instead, she argues that iGaming expands the customer base and allows those who favour online settings to gamble in a regulated and taxed environment.

Concerns regarding gambling addiction also arise among opponents of iGaming. State Rep. Dani Isaacsohn (D-Cincinnati) argues that making casinos more accessible raises the stakes for gambling addiction and the societal consequences tied to it.

Overall Summary: With the introduction of House Bill 298, Ohio is one step closer to legalizing online casino gaming, which supporters believe will generate significant tax revenue and job opportunities. However, the road ahead is fraught with challenges, with staunch opposition from established casino operators and growing concerns around gambling addiction.