As Online Casino Bills Stall in Columbus, Here's What the Data Says About States That Said Yes

Ohio lawmakers shelved two proposals to legalise online casinos last year. With a governor's race ahead and no clear path forward, the question isn't going away — and the numbers from states that already took the plunge are hard to ignore. COLUMBUS — It has been roughly a year since two bills aimed at bringing online casino gambling to Ohio were introduced in the Statehouse. Neither House Bill 298 nor Senate Bill 197 made it out of committee before the session ended, and as of early 2026, both are dead in their current form. The reasons are familiar to anyone who has followed gambling politics in Ohio. Governor Mike DeWine, whose term runs through January 2027, said in July that he was "very much against" putting a casino in everyone's hands around the clock. House Speaker Matt Huffman expressed concern about what he called "extraordinary" gambling expansion in recent years. A coalition of faith leaders, unions and mental health advocates testified in opposition. The bills were set aside. But the underlying question — whether Ohio should allow its existing casinos and racinos to offer slot machines, blackjack and poker online — has not been resolved. It has merely been deferred. And while Columbus debates, other states are collecting data that Ohio policymakers will eventually have to reckon with. How much money are other states making from online casinos? Seven states currently offer regulated online casino gaming: New Jersey, Delaware, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Connecticut and Rhode Island. The revenue figures, particularly from the larger markets, are substantial. Michigan, which launched iGaming in January 2021, is the most frequently cited comparison for Ohio. The two states share a border, similar demographics and a sports-mad population. Michigan's online casino market generated more than $2 billion in gross gaming revenue during its most recent fiscal year, with the state collecting hundreds of millions in tax revenue at a 20 per cent rate on adjusted gross receipts. Pennsylvania, another neighbouring state, has also seen its iGaming market mature rapidly since launching in 2019. New Jersey, the longest-running US market, continues to set revenue records more than a decade after going live. Nationally, the trend is clear. According to casino and gambling statistics compiled from regulatory filings and industry data, the shift toward digital platforms is accelerating across every jurisdiction that has opened the door. The question for Ohio is not whether there is demand — Ohioans are already gambling online through unregulated sweepstakes platforms and offshore sites — but whether the state wants to regulate and tax it. What were the Ohio bills actually proposing? The two bills took different approaches, though they shared a common framework. HB 298, sponsored by Representatives Brian Stewart of Ashville and Marilyn John of Richland County, was the narrower of the two. It would have limited iGaming licences to Ohio's existing 11 casinos and racinos, set a 28 per cent tax rate on gross revenue, charged $50 million for a five-year licence, and explicitly banned sweepstakes-style platforms. It did not include online lottery or horse racing. Senate Bill 197, introduced by Senator Nathan Manning of North Ridgeville, was broader. It envisioned a more competitive market with online lottery integration, online horse racing, and a tax rate between 36 and 40 per cent. Manning told the Senate Select Committee on Gaming that the state could net between $300 million and $1 billion annually. Both bills would have placed regulation under the Ohio Casino Control Commission, the same body that oversees the state's sports betting market, and both required participants to be at least 21 and physically located in Ohio. What happened to sports betting revenue in Ohio? Ohio's experience with sports betting is directly relevant to the iGaming debate, because it provides real data on how Ohioans behave when given legal digital gambling options. Sports betting launched statewide on Jan. 1, 2023. In its first full year, Ohio processed more than $7.65 billion in wagers. The state collected more than $936 million in total tax revenue from the activity, with the rest paid out in winnings. DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM, Caesars and a roster of other operators quickly established themselves. As Representative John put it during committee testimony: "We already have online gambling in other forms. This is a job creator — job creation in technological development." The sports betting rollout also demonstrated something proponents of iGaming emphasise: regulated markets don't create new gamblers so much as they redirect existing activity into taxed, monitored channels. Before legalisation, Ohioans were betting through offshore apps and informal networks. Now that money flows through licensed operators subject to state oversight. Is there any appetite to revisit online casinos before the election? Not much, based on the signals from leadership. Huffman said in October that he doesn't envision further gambling expansion in the next year, and DeWine's opposition effectively closes the door while he remains in office. The gubernatorial election in November 2026 could reset the conversation, depending on who wins and how they view gambling revenue. Analysts describe Ohio as a "watch list" state — there is genuine legislative interest but not enough political momentum for near-term action. The bills demonstrated that support exists in both chambers and from major industry players. MGM Resorts, Boyd Gaming and Penn Entertainment all testified in favour. Jack Entertainment, which operates Jack Cleveland Casino and Jack Thistledown Racino, opposed the measures, arguing that online casinos cannibalise revenue from physical venues. That tension — between digital expansion and brick-and-mortar protection — is playing out in statehouses across the country. Ohio, as the seventh-most-populous state, is one of the largest jurisdictions yet to take a side. What does this mean for Erie County and north-central Ohio? For residents of the Sandusky area, the iGaming debate connects to broader questions about how gambling revenue gets distributed. Ohio's sports betting taxes flow primarily into the general fund, with a small allocation for problem gambling services. Any future iGaming bill would likely follow a similar structure. The Ohio Capital Journal reported that Stewart estimated Ohio could receive between $400 million and $800 million annually from a mature iGaming market. Where that money goes — schools, infrastructure, addiction services, local government — is a policy choice that hasn't been made yet, because the underlying question of legalisation remains unanswered. In the meantime, sweepstakes platforms continue to operate in a legal grey area, unregulated and untaxed. The Gambling Commission data from the UK, where online gambling has been regulated for years, shows what a mature digital market looks like under proper oversight: transparent reporting, mandatory harm prevention tools and a revenue stream that funds public services. Whether Ohio gets there is a question for the next governor, the next legislature and, ultimately, the voters who elect them. The data, at least, is already in. This is sponsored content.