A group of more than a dozen Vermont state representatives want to make two major changes to the state’s sports betting law.
Rep. Thomas Stevens’ H 913, which has 12 additional co-sponsors attached, is officially labeled “An act relating to prohibiting certain prediction markets securities.”
As indicated by its title, it primarily aims to ensure that various categories of prediction markets are illegal under state law, including event contracts on sports as well as politics, people, disasters, war, or death. The bill is the latest in a flurry of legislation at both the state and federal levels aiming to impose restrictions on what prediction market platforms can offer, while litigation continues in courts across the country over the fundamental issue of federal vs. state jurisdiction.
Meanwhile, the bill also proposes a major alteration to the state’s authorized online sports betting market: Stevens and Co. want to replicate Illinois‘ first-in-the-nation per-wager tax on all sports wagers taken by licensed sportsbooks in the state.
The full text of H 913 is not publicly available, only a short-form summary of its key intent. The legislation was filed last week and referred to the House Government Operations and Military Affairs Committee.
Vermont suggests $0.50 per bet from day one
Vermont’s online sports betting market has been live since January 2024 and is notable as one of only two states, along with Tennessee, where state law allows only mobile sports betting, with no retail options. DraftKings, Fanatics and FanDuel are the three licensed and operational sportsbooks, each paying a tax of around 32% of their sports betting revenue.
That tax burden could soon increase if the Democrat-heavy bipartisan H 913 gets its way.
If approved, Vermont would charge its three sportsbooks a flat rate of 50 cents for every single bet taken, in addition to the existing revenue-based tax. That would actually be a heavier per-bet burden than operators paid initially in Illinois; that state’s unprecedented per-wager charge began at $0.25 per bet up to the first 20 million bets taken in the 2025-26 fiscal year.
In Illinois, FanDuel and DraftKings graduated to the $0.50 per-wager rate within a few months, and they have since been joined by Fanatics in eclipsing the 20-million-wager threshold.
Vermont not only state eyeing Illinois’ approach
The Sports Betting Alliance (SBA), of which all three operators are members, fiercely criticized the Illinois per-wager charge and pointed to a year-over-year drop of roughly 15% in the number of bets placed in the state each month. All 10 of Illinois’ licensed sportsbooks, including the Vermont trio and fellow SBA members BetMGM and bet365, implemented either a per-wager customer surcharge or a new minimum bet value in an attempt to offset the tax fee.
While betting volumes are down, Illinois Gaming Board (IGB) revenue data shows that the per-wager charge raised more than $60m in net-new tax revenue in the first half-year of its existence. The legislative estimate for that revenue for the entire 2025-26 fiscal year was only $36m; FanDuel and DraftKings together paid that sum in less than half the time.
Given factors including their vast difference in population (roughly 12.7 million for Illinois versus roughly 650,000 for Vermont) and the smaller number of licensed sportsbooks, a Vermont per-wager tax would be nowhere near as lucrative as Illinois’. But the Vermont bill is the latest indication that other states are not only looking to online sports betting as a source of more tax revenue, but that at least some of them like the way Illinois was thinking.
Last month, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s office proposed a budget that included the idea of exactly copying Illinois’ per-wager tax, at 25 cents on the first 20 million bets in a year and 50 cents per wager beyond that volume. Michigan’s budget suggested that the per-bet charge could generate approximately $38.8m in revenue in FY 2026-27 for the Medicaid Benefits Trust Fund.
Vermont’s bill does not provide a fiscal estimate for a per-wager tax of 50 cents.
SBC Americas reached out to the SBA to inquire about the Vermont bill. The organization declined to comment, but in a statement last month about the Michigan budget proposal, the coalition told SBC Americas that per-wager taxes undermine states’ legal sports betting markets, unfairly punish licensed operators and make it easier for black-market operators to entice players.
Vermont sponsors previously proposed sports betting repeal
The per-wager tax isn’t the most drastic sports betting-related proposal that the sponsors of H 913 have made in the last couple of years.
One of the co-sponsors is Rep. Troy Headrick. Along with Rep. Michael Mrowicki, Stevens and Headrick attempted to convince other lawmakers last year that Vermont should repeal sports betting altogether.
That bill made no progress whatsoever after being initially referred to the House Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs.
