Online casino gambling
Should online casino gambling be legal? Viewpoints from multiple sides.
Enjoying Framechange? Forward to a friend to help spread the word!
New to Framechange? Sign up for free to see multiple sides in your inbox.
Learn more about our mission to reduce polarization and how we represent different viewpoints here.
Snippets
President Trump ordered the deployment of roughly 2,000 National Guardsmen to Los Angeles in response to ongoing protests against ICE immigration arrests that took place in the city during the past week. California Governor Gavin Newsom opposed the National Guard deployment, which Trump invoked under Title 10 authority.
Russia launched a large-scale missile and drone attack across Ukraine that killed at least 3 and injured more than 40 others. President Vladimir Putin said the strike was in response to Kyiv’s drone attack on Russian military bases last weekend that destroyed a strategic bomber fleet.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that members of majority groups – such as white or heterosexual people – do not have a higher legal standard than minorities to prevail in discrimination suits, after siding with a white heterosexual woman in Ohio who claimed she was the victim of reverse discrimination.
President Donald Trump signed a sweeping travel proclamation that will bar the entry of foreign nationals from 12 countries, citing national security concerns. The proclamation partially restricts entry for nationals from another 7 countries.
The suspect responsible for an attack on a march for Israeli hostages in Boulder, Colorado last weekend was charged with 118 state criminal charges, including 28 counts of attempted murder. Federal authorities say they are investigating the attack as an “act of terrorism.”
What’s happening
Last month, two separate bills were introduced in the Ohio Legislature that would legalize online casino gambling (e.g., blackjack, craps) in the state. SB 197 – the more comprehensive of the two bills – was introduced in the state Senate while HB 298 was introduced in the state House of Representatives. Either bill, if passed, would legalize online casino gambling – also known as iGaming – in Ohio by Mar 31, 2026.
What’s in the bills: While aiming to legalize iGaming from different angles, the bills share the same fundamentals. Under both, the Ohio Casino Control Commission would regulate online gambling, and only casinos or racinos in Ohio would be licensed as online gambling operators.
Both bills would allocate 99% of all online gambling tax revenue to Ohio's general revenue fund and 1% to a “problem gambling fund” that would pay for the cost of programs addressing problem gambling (e.g., gambling addiction) in the state. Only individuals aged 21+ years and physically present in Ohio would be permitted to participate in iGaming.
Key differences: SB 197 would legalize 3 different types of online gambling – iGaming, online video lottery terminals, and online betting on horse racing. An online gambling operator would have to pay an initial $50M fee for an online gambling license and renew it every 5 years for an additional $5M fee. All internet gambling receipts received by online gambling operators would be subject to a 36% tax.
HB 298, smaller in scope, would only legalize iGaming. It would carry a similar $50M fee to acquire an online gambling license but charge a $10M renewal fee every 5 years. The gambling receipts tax would be slightly lower than SB 197 at 28%.
Other states: If Ohio legalizes iGaming, it would become the eighth US state to do so, joining Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.
Approximately 30 states and Washington DC have legalized online sports betting, specifically, in some form. Most of them did so after the Supreme Court ruling in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018), which struck down an effective ban on legalized sports gambling.
The Ohio Legislature has been hearing arguments from proponents and opponents of both bills. Their debate ties to a broader national discussion that has accompanied the growing trend of gambling legalization in states since 2018. This week, we bring you viewpoints from multiple sides. Let us know what you think.
Notable viewpoints
More supportive of legalized online casino gambling:
Legalized online casino gambling benefits state economies.
In states where it is legalized, iGaming is a significant tax revenue generator that has contributed billions of dollars to state programs in areas such as education, public health, and community development. In Ohio, legalized iGaming could generate over $600M in net-new annual tax revenue. (Summarized from Cesar Fernandez, Head of US State Government Relations at FanDuel, in his testimony supporting HB 298.)
Legalizing online casino gambling would boost revenue for existing retail casinos in Ohio, which would benefit state programs. Research shows that states with legalized iGaming have seen roughly 2% annual growth in brick-and-mortar gaming revenue. (Summarized from Brandt Iden, VP of Government Affairs for Fanatics Betting and Gaming, in his testimony supporting HB 298.)
Americans support legalized gambling and should have the right to spend their money how they please.
Tantamount to the freedom of speech and other civil liberties, Americans should have the freedom to spend their money as they wish, even on vices. Alcohol, for example, is widely enjoyed in the US and is responsible for more societal harm than gambling.
Gambling is a voluntary entertainment option similar to dining out at a restaurant, and Americans on average spend much less on gambling than other forms of entertainment or discretionary spending. An American Gaming Association poll found that 88% of Americans find gambling to be acceptable for themselves or others.
Legalizing iGaming would help regulators protect consumers.
Legalizing online casino gambling would empower lawmakers to regulate it and put consumer protections in place – including preventing underage gambling and creating responsible gaming tools (e.g., setting limits on deposits, betting amounts, and time betting) to safeguard against problem gambling. (Summarized from Scott Ward, lobbyist for Sports Betting Alliance, in his testimony supporting HB 298.)
Illegal and unregulated online casino gambling is pervasive. One estimate found there is $5B worth of illegal and unregulated online casino gambling in Ohio annually. Directing gamblers towards legalized iGaming would enable the government to weaken this illegal market while accessing taxable online casino gambling receipts. (Summarized from Scott Ward, lobbyist for Sports Betting Alliance, in his testimony supporting HB 298.)
More opposed to legalized online casino gambling:
Expanding legalized gambling would increase problem gambling and associated mental health issues.
Online casino gambling is designed to be highly addictive. iGaming – particularly on mobile devices – could be 10x more addictive than other gambling products. (Summarized from Brianne Doura–Schawohl, problem gambling advocate, in her testimony opposing SB 197 and HB 298.)
Online gambling companies are predatory and intentionally target gambling addicts as a feature of their business model – tracking customer data such as personal betting behavior and incentivizing gambling addicts to keep betting through VIP programs and special promotions. A 2024 WSJ analysis found that 70% of one online gambling company’s revenue came from just 0.5% of its gambling customers. (Summarized from Les Bernal, National Director of Stop Predatory Gambling, in his testimony opposing SB 197.)
Expanding access to addictive online gambling through legalized iGaming would exacerbate the mental health crisis already facing the country. Gambling addiction has the highest associated suicide rate of any known addiction.
Legalized online gambling costs states more in economic and social damage than it benefits them in tax revenue.
While legalizing iGaming in Ohio would create a net tax gain, it would be accompanied by a loss of nearly $1B in total annual economic output due to fewer people visiting brick-and-mortar casinos in the state, 3,000 jobs lost, and a potential 9-figure cost associated with treating and preventing problem gambling. (Summarized from Brian Wyman, Executive Vice President of The Innovation Group, in his testimony opposing SB 197.)
Gambling-related harm is a significant societal issue – research shows that for every individual struggling with gambling addiction, that person will negatively impact 6 other people. Examples of gambling-related harm include increased rates of divorce and domestic violence, and a greater reliance on social service programs. (Summarized from Brianne Doura–Schawohl, problem gambling advocate, in her testimony opposing SB 197.)
Legalized online gambling leads to higher levels of financial distress. A 2024 paper by UCLA researchers found that citizens in states with legalized online sports betting have higher levels of debt, loan delinquencies, and bankruptcies than those in states where sports betting access is restricted to in-person.
Be heard
We want to hear from you! Comment below with your perspective on online casino gambling and we may feature it in our socials or future editions. Below are topic ideas to consider.
Do you support legalizing online casino gambling? Why or why not?
What are some arguments or supporting points you appreciate about a viewpoint you disagree with?
Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.
Music on the bottom
New music out from Ty Segall! This prolific rocker has become one of my favorites. Check out his song “Possession” from his latest album. - Dylan
Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.