The online casino bill introduced by Washington, D.C. Councilmember Wendell Felder underwent a comprehensive evaluation during a Monday hearing with lawmakers and stakeholders.
The Council of the District of Columbia’s Committee on Human Services discussed Council Bill 260656, giving opponents and supporters of online casino gaming an opportunity to weigh in on whether to expand the district’s online gaming market.
The bill, known as the Internet Gaming and Consumer Protection Act, authorizes online casino gaming in D.C. while outlawing sweepstakes casinos by banning the operation of unlicensed gaming platforms that use a dual-currency system of payment.
“These platforms currently operate in the district without meaningful consumer safeguards or regulatory oversight, creating both health and financial risks for residents and limiting the district’ s ability to respond to any potential issues of fraud or theft arising from them,” said Committee on Human Services Chair Matthew Frumin during the hearing.
“This legislation establishes a comprehensive licensing framework, including a consumer protection plan, responsible gaming requirements, taxation, reporting, and an enforcement framework administered by the Office of Lottery and Gaming.”
Under the Internet Gaming and Consumer Protection Act, the Office Of Lottery and Gaming (OLG) is the regulatory of online casino gaming in the district. The legislation only allows residents and visitors 21 years of age and older to wager with iGaming platforms, a provision in the measure that is garnering support.
Potential of iGaming in DC
Felder’s measure provides explicit licensing terms for prospective iGaming operators:
- Operators are required to pay a $2m application fee for a license
- Initial licenses are set for a five-year term
- Renewal fees are $500,000 for each operator
- A renewed license is good for five years
If awarded an iGaming license, a licensed operator is taxed at a 25% rate on adjusted gaming revenue. The bill allows negative revenue to be carried over from month to month.
The first $500,000 of tax revenue generated from online casino gaming is sent to the Department of Behavioral Health. Meanwhile, the 10% is allocated toward the Department of Health. The remaining tax revenue is distributed to several departments.
Major operators want DC to authorize iGaming
Some of the largest operators with a footprint in the U.S. commercial gaming market attended the discussion concerning online casinos in D.C.
Caesars Entertainment voiced its support of expanding online casino gaming to D.C. The group of operators also included several members of the Sports Betting Alliance, including DraftKings and BetMGM.
“Nearly two years ago, the council passed legislation to modernize the district’s online sports wagering market,” said DraftKings Senior Government Affairs Manager Matt Scalf. “This bill represents a natural next step, building on the district’s success by joining eight states in authorizing iGaming as part of the district’s existing well-regulated gaming framework overseen by the Office of Lottery and Gaming.”
The authorization of iGaming would allow MGM Resorts to further solidify its footprint in the D.C. outside of its operation of MGM National Harbor just outside of the district.
BetMGM, a joint venture between MGM Resorts and Entain, voiced support of Felder’s effort to bring online casino gaming to a new market in the U.S. The operator also addressed cannibalization concerns regarding brick-and-mortar casino gaming.
“Based on the extensive experience operating around the country, our company has observed that markets perform at their best by maximizing consumer engagement when iGaming is introduced to complement in-person betting experiences,” said BetMGM Vice President of Government & Industry Affairs Robert O’Connor.
According to data provided by BetMGM, the operator has already invested more than $65m into D.C.’s gaming market behind its entry as a retail and online sports betting provider.
DC iGaming bill receives pushback
In D.C., online casino gaming is also receiving opposition from several trade groups and one of the major players in social-plus and sweepstakes gaming, ARB Interactive.
The hearing was attended by Stop Predatory Gambling, Campaign for Fairer Gambling, Safer Gambling Strategies and the National Association Against iGaming.
“There is no government institution in this country that inflicts more harm on the social, financial and mental well-being than the public policy of predatory gambling,” Stop Predatory Gambling National Director Les Bernal told hearing attendees.
Other stakeholders also voiced well-being concerns regarding the vertical.
“I don’t hear anybody talking about whether or not we should legalize fentanyl, because that’s going to be the way to address the drug crisis,” said Brianne Doura-Schawohl of Campaign for Fairer Gambling. “I’m all about giving people the option to gamble if that’s what they want to do, and not everybody will be harmed. But as a proud American, I don’t know if we should make our policies based upon bad actors.”
ARB Interactive is pushing back against the Internet Gaming and Consumer Protection Act based on its ban on online sweepstakes casinos and dual-currency platforms. The owner of Publishers Clearing House wants states to regulate sweeps and social-plus offerings.
“While ARB has no position on the broader issues being addressed by Bill 0656, we are concerned about the provision that would make it effectively impossible to operate social-plus gaming in the district,” said ARB Interactive General Counsel Bryan P. Schroeder.
ARB Interactive also raised the potential issue of players transitioning to illicit platforms.
“If social plus gaming is made illegal, we will have to stop operating in the district, but our players will simply find those unregulated offshore platforms to continue to play,” continued Schroeder.
DC iGaming bill timeline
Lawmakers in D.C. are in no hurry to advance the Internet Gaming and Consumer Protection Act with recesses ahead for the district’s legislative session in 2026.
“The jury is still out on this,” said Councilmember Christinia Henderson during the hearing. “Is this something we could figure out in the next three weeks? Probably not.”
The piece of legislation continues to sit in the Committee on Human Services.
