Maryland’s Online Casino Legislation Faces Growing Opposition

As Maryland's lawmakers prepare for a pivotal year in the debate over online casinos, the proposed bills for 2025 have been met with resistance from a range of stakeholders, casting doubt on the future of online gaming in the state. Both the Maryland House and Senate have seen little action on their respective bills—HB 17 and SB 340—despite their potential to reshape the state's gaming landscape. While bills' sponsors remain hopeful, they face mounting opposition from industry players, labor unions, and responsible gambling advocates, who argue that the proposals could lead to job losses, economic harm, and an increase in problem gambling.

The Maryland House of Delegates’ Ways and Means Committee, led by Del. Vanessa Atterbeary, held a hearing on HB 17 on February 10. The bill, which aims to establish a regulated online casino framework, would permit online poker, slots, table games, and live dealer games. A similar hearing on SB 340, introduced by Maryland Sen. Ron Watson, took place on January 29, where both bills were met with significant pushback. The most vocal opposition came from major gaming companies, including The Cordish Companies, which operates Maryland Live! Casino in Hanover, and PENN Entertainment, which owns the Hollywood Casino in Perryville.

Concerns from Industry Giants

Representatives from these companies expressed fears that the legalization of online casinos could result in cannibalization, meaning that revenue generated by virtual gambling could siphon business away from brick-and-mortar casinos. The Cordish Companies, in particular, argued that such a move would lead to reduced revenue at Maryland Live! and could force layoffs of casino staff. While Sen. Watson responded by noting that his company already participates in online gaming operations in neighboring Pennsylvania, Atterbeary hinted that amendments to HB 17 could prevent Maryland Live! from securing a potential online gaming license.

Other casino operators, including MGM Resorts and Churchill Downs, echoed similar concerns. MGM warned that the bill could hurt their Ocean Downs property in Berlin, while Churchill Downs expressed similar fears about a decline in their local revenues. However, the most contentious point raised by PENN Entertainment was the bill's provisions that would allow out-of-state companies without physical operations in Maryland to apply for iGaming licenses. Despite these concerns, representatives for both The Cordish Companies and PENN Entertainment indicated they would seek iGaming licenses if the bills passed, suggesting that, for them, the issue is more about ensuring a level playing field.

Broader Concerns: Labor and Responsible Gambling Advocates

The opposition to HB 17 and SB 340 is not solely focused on revenue concerns. Labor unions and responsible gambling advocates have added their voices to the debate. Unite Here, a prominent union representing Maryland hospitality workers, testified that the expansion of online casinos in other U.S. states had already led to job losses in the casino sector. The union warned that Maryland's regulated iGaming framework could have a similar effect, displacing workers in the state’s land-based casinos.

Additionally, advocates for responsible gambling raised alarms about the potential for increased instances of problem gambling if online casinos were legalized. They argued that the availability of remote gambling could exacerbate compulsive gaming behaviors, leading to long-term social and economic consequences for vulnerable individuals and families.

While these concerns have dominated the hearings, there was some support for the bills. GeoComply, a company that provides location data services to online gambling platforms, testified in favor of the legislation, emphasizing the potential for growth in the digital gaming market. Additionally, operators of off-track betting sites in Maryland expressed support, provided that provisions to include minority-owned, small, and women-owned businesses remained part of the framework.

The most significant obstacle for online gaming advocates in Maryland is the requirement for a public referendum. If either HB 17 or SB 340 is passed by the Maryland legislature, the measure would then go to voters for approval. Given the substantial opposition already voiced, it is likely that organized campaigns against online gaming would be launched, particularly by unions and gaming companies concerned about revenue loss.

For proponents of online casinos, the path to success is now complicated by the need to build broad public support for the referendum. The testimony at the hearings suggests that without significant modifications to the legislation or a shift in the political landscape, online casino proponents will face an uphill battle in swaying Maryland voters.

 

Expansion of online casinos could lead to significant job losses and reduced revenues at Maryland’s land-based casinos,” said a representative from The Cordish Companies. “Our concern is that this proposal will hurt local workers and the state's economy.

 

The Future

Despite the resistance, supporters of online gaming are not backing down. They argue that legalizing online casinos could open up new revenue streams for the state, generate jobs in the tech sector, and create a safer, more regulated environment for online gamblers. However, with strong opposition from industry stakeholders, unions, and responsible gambling advocates, the bills will need to undergo significant revisions—or face a fierce battle for voter approval.

For now, HB 17 and SB 340 sit at a crossroads. As Maryland lawmakers move closer to the heart of their legislative session, the future of online gaming in the state remains uncertain. If nothing else, the ongoing debate reflects the broader national tensions over the expansion of online gambling, and the Maryland case will likely serve as a bellwether for other states grappling with similar issues.