Washington DC Suddenly Sounds Serious About Legalizing Online Casino

After Maine somewhat surprisingly legalized online casino in January, attention soon shifted about halfway down the Eastern Seaboard. The neighbor states of Maryland and Virginia stood out as two jurisdictions with as good a shot as any of joining Maine in 2026.

But Virginia, despite encouraging progress, punted in early March to next year, and later that month, Maryland did the same.

That little 68-square-mile-or-so district in between those two states, however, was paying attention.

Washington, D.C. got its own bill to legalize iGaming moving in April, and if a hearing Monday before the DC Council’s Committee on Human Services is any indication, our nation’s capital is giving legitimate consideration to regulating the much-debated gaming vertical.

All of the usual subjects and the usual suspects had their moments in the sun. There were those who oppose gambling expansion and those who specifically oppose regulated online casino talking about problem gambling and cannibalization. There were gaming operators and other iGaming advocates talking about the existence of unregulated offshores and the potential tax revenue.

And there was a 13-member panel giving consideration to Councilmember Wendell Felder’s B 26-0656, the Internet Gaming and Consumer Protection Act of 2026, and being interested enough to inquire about timelines — with representatives of major operators like DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM stating they could be up and running within six months of the bill’s passage.

RG in DC

Felder’s bill has two major aims: to legalize iCasino and to ban sweepstakes casinos in D.C. When he introduced the legislation last month, he wrote that it “reflects a practical, data-informed approach to strengthening consumer projections, modernizing our gaming framework, and capturing revenue that is currently flowing outside of the District’s oversight.”

The bill would make the legal online casino age 21. Adjusted gross revenue would be taxed at 25%, and operators would pay a $2 million fee for a license that would be good for five years. There would be no hard ceiling on the number of operators that could get licensed.

Responsible gambling requirements are clearly established in B 26-0656, with operators needing to enable deposit limits, spend or loss limits, session or time limits, cooling-off periods, self-exclusion and account closure options, procedures to evaluate exclusion requests, access to account histories, and automated reminders of session time and activity.

That RG focus proved a cornerstone of the case to legalize as presented at Monday’s hearing. Felder began the discussion by saying legalizing iCasino is about “recognizing reality and responding responsibly.” He added that citizens of D.C. are “already participating and they need safeguards.”

Michelle MacGregor, the senior policy advisor for the Sports Betting Alliance — a group that counts DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM, bet365, and Fanatics among its members — echoed Felder’s arguments and did so from the perspective of a fellow longtime District of Columbia resident.

“The regulated market is largely comprised of individuals who are either seeking out legal iGaming in other jurisdictions or were operating in the illegal market,” MacGregor said, expressing the belief that legalizing the activity will better protect those who choose to gamble online.

Opponents make their case

On the opposite side of the debate, however, were representatives from the likes of the National Association Against iGaming and a group called Stop Predatory Gambling.

The outspoken Les Bernal, of the latter organization, who aligned in the past with since-deceased billionaire Sheldon Adelson of the Las Vegas Sands Corp., expressed his belief that the public does not want legal gambling.

“The narrative behind illegal gambling was a made-up public relations narrative by the gambling industry, and the reason why they needed to do it is because your constituents weren’t demanding commercial sports gambling,” Bernal said. “They sure as heck aren’t demanding online casino gambling.”

Bernal grew even more colorful in saying that giving regulated operators access to potential gamblers is like “putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank.”

The operators, however, countered that gamblers in D.C. are losing about $700 million a year on unlicensed sites, the potential tax revenue from which could be going toward budgetary needs and various community programs and services.

Online casino has proven a significant generator of tax revenue in the few states that have legalized it such as Michigan, which in March collected $64.1 million in iCasino taxes compared to $2.3 million from mobile sports betting.

No next steps were spelled out at the DC Council hearing. There was no vote taken, and eventually the bill will need to pass a vote from the 13 councilmembers.

Like Virginia and Maryland, though, D.C. legislators appear to be giving this measure reasonable consideration and not dismissing it out of hand. A punt to 2027 may come, but unlike its two neighboring states, D.C. is in the mix for 2026 as of now.