Maryland House Committee Appears Split On Potential Sweepstakes Ban

The future of a sweepstakes gaming ban in Maryland is unclear after a Thursday hearing in the House Ways and Means Committee on the subject resulted in an hour of discussion — much of it centered on whether a proposal would ban games like Candy Crush and Words With Friends.

HB 295, which seeks to ban unregulated casino-style gaming platforms that employ “multiple currency systems or payment allowing the player to exchange the currency for any prize or award or cash or cash equivalent,” got its first hearing since the session started last month. The Senate equivalent, SB 112, had a hearing with no vote last week.

Testimony played out as it has across the country as sweepstakes bans have been considered in multiple states. California is the biggest state so far to have prohibited the platforms, but lawmakers in several other states including Connecticut and New Jersey also did in 2025.

Licensed casino companies and the Sports Betting Alliance (SBA), which offers online sports betting in Maryland, testified against, while sweepstakes operators, including VGW, testified in favor. The SBA is comprised of bet365, BetMGM, DraftKings, Fanatics Sportsbook, and FanDuel, many of whom operate sports betting platforms in Maryland.

Licensed operators support ban

Online sports betting is legal in Maryland, but online casino is not, meaning companies like Caesars, MGM, and The Cordish Companies, all of which have retail casino locations, cannot offer online casino. Representatives from those companies tried to hammer home the point that revenue and tax dollars are flowing out of Maryland because of unregulated sites, and that such sites are not beholden to a rigorous licensing process but are still operating. Some of them also lobbied for legal online gaming.

“It’s estimated that $8 billion” is being spent on unregulated sweepstakes sites, Scott Ward testified on behalf of the SBA. “That’s up 30 percent against three years ago. A bill to ban online casinos is a good first step, but that money will continue to flow offshore unless there is a legal alternative.”

Said Rick Limardo, government relations director for MGM National Harbor, which offers online sports betting in partnership with BetMGM: “We pay state taxes, we comply with strict consumer protection laws, and we invest in responsible gaming. … In contrast, illegal operators continue to capitalize on the desire for gaming here” and the “fly-by-night” sweepstakes operators are “trying to take advantage without paying taxes.”

Maryland finds itself in a unique position — there are only seven states that have legalized online casino, and three of them (Delaware, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia) border Maryland.

The other side says …

While licensed casino operators in Maryland support a ban, sweepstakes operators made the argument that they are not breaking any laws, and that the “majority” of their customers never spend any money on their sites.

After wading through a discussion about what separates games like Candy Crush or Words With Friends from sweepstakes, a representative from VGW argued that sweepstakes are regulated by multiple federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Justice Consumer Protection Division, and that they do offer and promote responsible gambling tools.

“I want to clarify about the ‘lack’ of responsible gaming tools,” VGW Head of Responsible Social Gameplay Dwight Ramenaden said. “We close accounts found to be used by minors. We also have a suite of responsible gaming tools, we monitor player behavior. And we were the first to introduce gameplay affordability.”

He said he joined VGW as a specialist in responsible and problem gambling, and that the company has a comprehensive know-your-customer process, including age and identity verification.

Sean Ostrow, a gaming attorney who is the managing director of the Social Gaming Leaders Alliance (SGLA), also testified in opposition to the bill.

“If HB 295 passes, the law-abiding operators will exit the state, but illegal operators will stay and prey on unsuspecting Maryland consumers,” he said. “Social Plus operators offer real consumer protections that keep minors from playing, that protect consumer data and finances, and that encourage responsible social gameplay.”

Lawmakers seem unsure what to do

Despite convincing testimony from both sides, members of the Ways and Means Committee clearly are not all on the same page. Traditionally, such a situation translates into no action by a committee, though Maryland lawmakers still have more than two months to weigh the issue before a scheduled April 13 adjournment. The crossover deadline is March 23.

Del. Jason Buckle started the conversation around Candy Crush and Words With Friends when he said, “I hate it when everyone in the industry can’t seem to get along … what games, specifically are we talking about?”

There was some discussion about whether or not Candy Crush’s “tournaments” would be at issue should the bill pass, but another lawmaker pointed to the proposed definition of banned games, which includes a provision that they are “available on the internet” and “simulate casino-style gaming, such as slot machines, video poker, and table games, including blackjack, roulette, craps, and poker … lottery games … or sports betting.” The lawmaker called bringing Candy Crush into the conversation a “red eskimo.”

But the conversation revealed that even though the Ways and Means Committee filed the bill, its members don’t have a clear understanding of the issue, nor consensus on how to move forward. No additional hearings on the topic are currently scheduled in the House or Senate.