An Ohio lawmaker’s effort to legalize online casino gaming is unlikely to move before the end of the year, but the structure of the state’s stalled iGaming bill offers a preview of how supporters could approach the issue when a new governor takes office in 2027.
Rep. Brian Stewart, a sponsor of House Bill 298, said during an iDevelopment and Economic Association (iDEA) webinar last week that the central challenge of passing an iGaming law is persuading a legislature with deep skepticism of gambling expansion that online casinos can produce new revenue without undermining the casinos and racinos already operating in Ohio, and ensuring problem gambling does not spiral out of control.
“We just have a lot of legislators that don’t like gambling,” Stewart, 44, said. “Legislators my age and below, I get no pushback. My age and above, it’s a much harder sell.”
Robust gambling market already in place
Ohio has a substantial existing gambling market with four casinos, seven racinos, retail and online sports betting, lottery products and a population that makes it a potentially major iGaming jurisdiction.
But the state’s most significant iGaming obstacle has been Gov. Mike DeWine. The term-limited governor has repeatedly opposed online casino expansion, linking the issue to his regret over signing Ohio’s sports betting law and to concerns about the accessibility of online gambling and problem-gambling risk.
Beyond DeWine, Stewart said some of the resistance predates the state’s sports betting launch. Ohio voters approved casino gambling through a 2009 constitutional amendment, which has stayed with some lawmakers opposed to the industry, he said. Stewart also said other legislators who were not in office when sports betting passed in 2021 now have their own chance to oppose another gambling expansion.
Finance at issue as well
The other argument is fiscal. Stewart said Ohio’s long-running Republican “white whale” goal of eliminating the state income tax has made it harder to avoid the question of how the state will replace revenue without raising other taxes.
With estimates that iGaming could generate as much as $400m annually, Stewart said iGaming could become part of that calculation, even if it has not yet been enough to move legislation.
“The tea leaves are still there,” he said.
Current Ohio iGaming bill a starting point
Stewart introduced HB 298 in May 2025, and it remains in the House Finance Committee after two hearings. The session ends in December. The bill would:
- Authorize internet gambling regulated by the Ohio Casino Control Commission
- Impose a 28% tax on internet gambling receipts
- Direct 99% of tax proceeds to the state’s General Revenue Fund and 1% to the Problem Gambling Fund.
Rather than opening the market to national online casino brands, HB 298 would limit licenses to Ohio’s existing casinos and racinos.
Stewart said that approach was deliberate. Restricting skins to existing brick-and-mortar licensees is intended to address concerns that iGaming would cannibalize the businesses that already employ Ohioans and generate tax revenue.
That is a similar reason Stewart said proponents are pushing iGaming before an effort to legalize video lottery terminals.
“If video lottery terminals had proliferated, it would make it that much harder to do,” Stewart said. “[There would be] that many more opponents of gaming expansion that we’d have to fight. It’s minimizing the intramural gambling turf fight [that] has the ability to ground any bill.”
Retail incentives could be central
Stewart said promotional credits are another area where Ohio may take a different path from its sports betting market.
HB 298 prohibits licensed internet gambling operators from providing promotional credits for online gambling. It would allow promotions tied to in-person gaming, accommodations, food, beverages, entertainment and other offerings at a casino or racino.
The distinction could become especially important in a future proposal, as Stewart said promotional deductions in online sports betting helped national brands such as FanDuel and DraftKings establish dominance over local operators. A retail-centered promotions structure, he suggested, could direct the benefits of iGaming toward local casinos rather than simply subsidizing digital customer acquisition.
That strategy does not eliminate cannibalization concerns, but it gives casinos and racinos a clearer role in the iGaming framework. It also gives legislators a tangible answer to what online expansion would do for the state’s existing gaming sector.
Consumer protection remains significant iGaming hurdle
Stewart said supporters need a stronger consumer protection case, including a more credible approach to problem gambling, if iGaming is going to become acceptable to a broader group of lawmakers. That will likely be important in a state where DeWine has consistently argued that the always-on nature of online gambling creates risks different from land-based casinos.
“The most compelling opposition was the idea of if I want to gamble at a casino, at least I need to get up, get dressed, take cash out,” Stewart said. “If I want to gamble all day on my phone, I can do it all day, and nobody knows. The consumer protection side, the problem gaming programs … if we’re going to get it done, we have to have a compelling answer to why it’s acceptable.”
DeWine’s departure in January 2027 will likely give supporters a reason to revisit the issue. Democratic gubernatorial nominee Amy Acton has said she is open to regulated iGaming as a revenue source. However, she has paired that position with calls for safeguards for young people and limits on what she described as predatory advertising. Republican nominee Vivek Ramaswamy has not laid out a clear position on iGaming, but has emphasized his goal of eliminating income taxes.
