Ohio iGaming Bill Proposed Would Legalize Online Gambling
The time has come for the Ohio state legislature to address the same question that has been asked in dozens of other states. Is the time right to pass iGaming legislation?
So far, only seven (7) states have sent iGaming (online casino gambling) legislation into the hands of their respective Governors for signature. Those seven (7) states are:
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Michigan
- New Jersey
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- West Virginia
In the other 30+ states that have managed to pass retail and/or online sports betting legislation, getting iGambling legislation passed has proven to be difficult. Where things stand today, a handful of states do seem to be closing in on some form of iGaming legalization. Let’s put Indiana, Illinois, Louisiana, and Ohio in that category.
iGaming Bill Introduced in Ohio
In an interesting twist, Ohio State Senator Niraj Antani (R-Miamisburg) has introduced an iGaming bill (Bill SB-312) on the Senate floor. The timing of this introduction seems a bit strange for two reasons. First, the general election is only a few weeks away, leaving Senators and House Representatives busy trying to address election and reelection issues. Because of this distraction, Ohio lawmakers are generally reluctant to consider any legislation outside of some kind of legislative emergency. This is likely to continue until the end of the year.
The second reason is a bit more interesting. Sen Antani is clearly the bill’s sponsor. However, he is not up for reelection. That makes this a “lame duck” legislative effort that will naturally fall by the wayside if not passed by the end of the year. Why would he choose this peculiar timing?
Antani feels the time is right for Ohio to adopt gaming legislation. The state’s residents want it, and the state’s coffers could certainly use the tax revenue. Inevitably, he believes it’s going to happen, as evidenced by this statement he made to the press:
“I think you’re going to see poker, you’re going to see roulette, you’re going to see slot machines, things like that”, adding, “Blackjack, any sort of card, game table, game, you’ll see allowed. That’s the idea here.”
The consensus is this bill has little to no chance of getting passed this year. However, it’s good to see that Antani seems to have introduced SB-312 to serve as a reminder to next year’s legislative body that the time has come to take a serious look at legalizing online casino gambling in Ohio.
The Devil is in the details
While SB-312 is unlikely to see the light of day, there is so much value in examining what iGaming legislation might look like in the future. Certainly, a different iGaming bill sponsor might see things differently in the future, perhaps next year. With that said, it’s worthwhile to consider what Sen. Antani has in mind, given the time he has already invested in creating this legislation.
- The Ohio Casino Control Commission (OCCC) would control licensing and regulating online casino operators. The Commission is currently in charge of the state’s four (4) retail casinos.
- The proposed tax rate on gross online casino revenue would be 15%. This is in direct conflict with the lower tax rate used on gross sports betting revenue.
- Only five (5) individual operators may hold a license at any given time. Preferrably given to the state’s retail casino owners. It’s worth noting that no such limits exist on sports betting licenses.
- All applicants must pay an application fee of $650,000. Of that amount, $100,000 is non-refundable. Additionally, $300,000 of the amount would pay for the initial permit, and the remaining $250,000 sent to a designated problem gambling fund.
- The annual license renewal fee would be set at $250,000, with another $250,000 going into the aforementioned problem gambling fund. That would create an annual revenue stream of at least $1,250,000+ for problem gambling initiatives.
- Internet casino advertisers and affiliates would need to submit the same application and permit fees minus the obligation to the problem gambling funds. This also applies to renewal fees. Advertisers and affiliates would include companies that are providing online casino gaming software.
- The OCCC would authorize and request the creation of an annual problem and responsible gaming report. Furthermore, licensed operators must display and provide easy access to problem gambling resources.
- All iGaming activities are restricted to players who are physically in the state when they register or play online casino games of chance. Additionally, each operator must use modern geo-tracking software to track the IP addresses of anyone who logs into a wagering account.
- The bill calls for consideration of online poker.
Top issue that’s standing in the way of iGaming legislation
As iGaming opponents and proponents line up to be heard on this issue, there seems to be one major obstacle that stands above the rest.
Leading the way on the opponent’s side is none other than the state’s retail casino operators. As indicated above, there are four (4) brick-and-mortar casinos operating within the state’s borders. Of course, those operators do not want their revenue savaged by online casino operators. This is an obstacle that keeps popping up in other states where Indian casinos have much power.
In Antani’s eyes, there is a compromise available. It starts with giving retail casino operators priority over securing an iGaming license. Beyond that, finding a way to give them a piece of the iGaming pie from non-retail licensees might tip the scales.
Keep in mind that Ohio is losing potential revenue to casinos located offshore (outside the U.S.) every day. There is no federal law preventing Americans from playing on these sites, and many of them hold a license in their local jurisdiction.
This blog highlights Ohio’s cautious approach toward iGaming, sparking curiosity about the potential impacts on gaming dynamics! Excited to see how Indiana, Illinois, Louisiana, and Ohio address this legislative opportunity! 🎉