Legislative Discussion Over Proposed Online Gaming Legislation in Ohio Encountering Intense Scrutiny
Ohio's efforts to legalize online casino gambling have faced staunch opposition, as evidenced by a recent hearing that revealed a myriad of concerns from various stakeholders. The hearing served as a stark indication of the complications ahead for Senate Bill 197, which seeks to institute substantial changes within the state's gaming industry.
During the three-hour session, over 40 individuals voiced their concerns, with the majority either opposing the bill or advocating for modifications. Only two companies, Fanatics and Rush Street Interactive, publicly supported the bill, but even they advocated for lower taxes and license fees. Fanatics also proposed increasing the number of available licenses from 11 to 22 and recommended a more competitive fee structure.
Notable names such as FanDuel, BetMGM, Caesars, and DraftKings had expressed support in previous hearings but did not reiterate their stance during the most recent session.
Cost Concerns Abound
The bill proposes licensing fees of up to $50 million, making it one of the highest in the country. Additionally, the proposed tax rate ranges from 36% to 40%, depending on the relationship between the online operator and the in-state facility. Established businesses like Caesars with a presence in Ohio could potentially benefit from the lower tax rate, while outsiders like FanDuel would pay more if they partner with a local venue.
Local Enterprises Voice Objections
The bill's potential impact on employment was a significant concern, particularly for Miami Valley Gaming, which operates a racino in Ohio. The bill's opponents included local bar owners, fraternal groups, grocery chains, and restaurant associations. Many urged lawmakers to allow video lottery terminal (VLT) games to mitigate anticipated revenue losses if online gambling were to expand.
Lottery Conundrum
Another contentious aspect of the bill involves online lottery ticket sales, which raised objections from the Ohio Grocers Association. They argued that such a move could lead to reduced foot traffic and sales in physical stores, reflecting broader worries about the impact of digital services on traditional business models.
Supporters of online gaming believe that legislation must adapt to contemporary consumer behavior, but the hearing indicated that entrenched business interests continue to resist this shift.
No Immediate Advancement
Since its initial referral to the Senate Select Committee on Gaming in May 2025, Senate Bill 197 has undergone three hearings, but no vote has been cast. Unless substantial changes are made to accommodate a wide array of interests, the bill's progress will likely face steep challenges.
- Despite the support from a few companies such as Fanatics and Rush Street Interactive, the bill's high licensing fees and taxes have raised concerns among a majority of stakeholders, including established businesses and local enterprises.
- The proposed online casino bill, with its expensive licensing fees and potential impact on employment and traditional businesses, has sparked debates about the role of technology in shaping the future of gaming in Ohio, with some arguing for an adaptation to modern consumer behavior and others emphasizing the necessity of safeguarding existing business models.
