Delegate Vanessa Atterbeary and Senator Ron Watson, two of the state’s most vocal proponents of iGaming, have introduced new bills aiming to legalize Maryland online casinos.
However, concerns over the cannibalization of brick-and-mortar casinos and opposition from key industry players remain significant hurdles.
Lawmakers Renew Efforts for iGaming Expansion
Atterbeary’s House Bill 17 (HB 17) and Watson’s Senate Bill 340 (SB 340) both propose allowing the Maryland State Lottery and Gaming Control Commission to issue online casino licenses.
The bills would permit video lottery terminal (VLT) operators, sports wagering facility license holders, and long-standing Maryland-based businesses to apply for licenses. Both measures also emphasize social equity, requiring that additional licenses be available to joint ventures where social equity applicants own at least 33% of the operation.
Despite these efforts, the opposition has been vocal. The Cordish Companies, which operates Maryland Live!, remains a major opponent, arguing that online casinos would take revenue away from physical establishments.
A report commissioned by the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Commission last year estimated a 10% decline in brick-and-mortar revenue if iGaming were legalized — a figure that has since been revised to 16%. This has fueled concerns that online casinos could harm existing Maryland casino jobs.
Balancing Economic Gains and Industry Resistance
Supporters of iGaming argue that regulated online casinos would create new revenue streams and help Maryland compete with neighboring states like Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, which have already embraced online gaming.
Pennsylvania, for instance, saw online gambling revenue exceed $2.18 billion in 2024, marking a 25.25% year-over-year increase. Meanwhile, Maryland’s six land-based casinos generated a total of $1.96 billion in gaming revenue during the same period — highlighting the untapped potential of online gaming.
Atterbeary has been clear in her stance that Maryland is already lagging behind.
“At this point, we’re not being left behind. We are behind, quite frankly,”
she said during a recent House hearing. She has also pushed back against fears that online casinos would exacerbate problem gambling, emphasizing the need for regulations and funding for responsible gaming initiatives.
To address job displacement concerns, Watson’s SB 340 includes provisions requiring online operators to invest at least $5 million into building and operating live dealer studios in Maryland.
Additionally, up to $10 million from iGaming proceeds in the first year would be allocated to the Video Lottery Facility Employee Displacement Fund, designed to assist casino workers affected by the transition.
Still, even with these safeguards, opposition from key stakeholders — including Penn Entertainment, which wants exclusivity for Maryland’s six major casinos — could prevent the bills from advancing.
Atterbeary’s 2024 online casino bill passed the House with a 92-43 vote but failed to gain traction in the Senate. If history repeats itself, Maryland may continue to debate iGaming without enacting real change.
With legislative discussions ongoing, Maryland’s future in online gambling remains uncertain. If proponents can navigate the political landscape and address industry concerns, the state could join its neighbors in embracing online casino gaming. Until then, the debate rages on.
