National Association Against iGaming claims majority of Maine residents oppose the legalization of igaming
Anti-igaming advocacy group, the National Association Against iGaming, has published a study revealing that 64% of Maine residents oppose the introduction of igaming in the state.
The poll comes ahead of a three-day window this week for Gov. Janet Mills to veto the legalization of igaming in Maine.
Commissioned by the coalition, which includes a number of land-based gambling operators, and conducted by national political strategy firm Lake Research Partners, the study says that while 64% of Maine residents oppose the legalization of igaming in the state, 49% are “strongly opposed”.
Board Member of the National Association Against iGaming, and Executive President and General Counsel at Monarch Casino & Resort, Jason Gumer, said “If Maine allows igaming to become law, the state will stand out as an outlier in New England and across the country at a time when other governors and legislatures are hearing from their constituents and choosing not to move forward with this highly addictive form of gambling.”
The biggest concern highlighted in the study was the failure of online gambling companies to verify ages and stop minors accessing gambling apps, with 55% of voters saying they have serious or some doubts about igaming legalization.
Moreover, 51% of voters said they would be less likely to support a lawmaker who votes to legalize igaming.
Gumer added, “With a veto decision imminent, Gov. Mills has a clear signal from voters. Legalizing igaming is deeply unpopular, politically risky, and viewed as a direct threat to children, families, and communities.”
In addition to trying to legalize igaming, Maine lawmakers introduced a bill in December last year to ban sweepstakes casinos in the state, targeting those offering “dual-currency” systems.
Abi Bray brings strong researching skills to the forefront of all of her writing, whether it’s the newest slots, industry trends or the ever changing legislation across the U.S, Asia and Australia, she maintains a keen eye for detail and a passion for reporting.
Verticals:
Sectors:
Topics:
Dig Deeper
Related stories
The Backstory
Why Maine’s iGaming fight is cresting now
Maine’s push to legalize online casino gaming has reached a decisive moment, with a three-day window for Gov. Janet Mills to issue a veto. The timing caps months of mounting pressure from regulators, industry groups and faith leaders who have framed the issue as a trade-off between consumer protection and economic upside. The state’s top gambling regulator recently warned residents about the proliferation of unlicensed offshore sites, stressing that no online casino, igaming or sweepstakes site is authorized to operate in Maine and that players using such platforms do so at their own risk. That message underscored a core argument from supporters of legalization: bringing gambling into a regulated environment could curb black-market activity and add guardrails missing today.
The legislative vehicle, known as LD 1164, has stalled and restarted over the past year as lawmakers weighed enforcement capacity, tax rates and responsible gaming standards. While sports betting and fantasy sports are already legal, casino-style games remain prohibited. The regulatory vacuum has created an opening for sweepstakes and “social casino” models to target Mainers with coin-based systems that can mimic real-money play, according to the regulator’s warning. The question before Mills is whether a formal market—with licensing, age verification and responsible gambling mandates—would better protect the public than the status quo.
Opposition has intensified as the decision nears. Critics argue that legalizing online casinos will increase gambling participation, expose minors to risk and strain families. The political temperature rose further after an advocacy coalition highlighted voter skepticism and warned lawmakers of potential backlash at the polls. The coalition’s position aligns with a broader national resistance to rapid gambling expansion, particularly where regulators are still catching up to new product formats and consumer risks.
A regional and national context shaped by risk
Maine is not debating in isolation. Neighboring and nearby states are grappling with the pace and scope of legal gambling, which has expanded quickly from retail casinos to sports betting and, now, online casinos. In Ohio, an expanding coalition of more than 100 churches urged lawmakers to reject an online casino bill, warning of the social costs. The group’s campaign, rooted in mental health and constitutional concerns, has made headlines as faith leaders press lawmakers to rethink online casino expansion. Their argument reflects a growing anxiety that gambling’s migration to the smartphone increases access, accelerates play and makes addiction more difficult to detect.
Missouri’s experience with sports betting illustrates how risk scrutiny is shaping policy. As the state launched its legal market, regulators and operators narrowed the scope of proposition wagers after a string of scandals tied to alleged manipulation of player stats and insider information. The reaction included new limits on certain baseball props and tighter operator controls. The state’s debut, described in detail as Missouri launches sports betting as prop wagers face national scrutiny, shows how compliance frameworks often harden only after problems surface. Maine lawmakers have been watching these developments as they weigh whether they can preempt similar issues in an online casino context.
For Maine, the lesson is clear: legalization without robust guardrails invites backlash and potential rollbacks. The stakes include not just revenue but also the administrative capacity to monitor operators, identify suspicious play, protect minors and respond quickly to new product risks.
Industry pivots complicate the policy picture
Even as statehouses wrestle with the scope of legal gambling, the industry is evolving in ways that blur categories and challenge old rules. Daily fantasy sports platforms, once pitched as a distinct product, are reconfiguring their offerings to push closer to prediction and trading markets. In a notable move, PrizePicks gained National Futures Association approval under a subsidiary, allowing it to participate as a futures commission merchant for certain contracts regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The company said it will explore partnerships to launch prediction markets, signaling a convergence between entertainment and financial instruments that could test jurisdictional lines.
That shift matters in Maine. If state law blocks traditional online casino play but adjacent prediction products proliferate under federal or multistate oversight, consumer exposure will continue to rise without clear state guardrails. The PrizePicks development, which arrived the same day its majority acquisition was announced by a European lottery operator, also underscores the capital flowing into companies at the boundary of gambling and financial markets. Policymakers face a moving target as firms rebrand or retool offerings to fit within or around state statutes.
A distant test case with local implications
Far from Augusta, the island of Tinian in the Northern Mariana Islands offers a case study in rapid legalization tied to financial innovation. Lawmakers there overrode a gubernatorial veto to approve online gambling alongside the creation of a new stablecoin, arguing the cryptocurrency could bolster transparency and attract investment. The leap, detailed in coverage of Tinian’s stablecoin move, highlights how jurisdictions with acute economic pressures may adopt aggressive strategies to catalyze digital gambling ecosystems.
For Maine, Tinian’s approach is unlikely to be a blueprint. But it illustrates two dynamics relevant to the debate in Augusta: the speed with which legal frameworks can shift, and the way payments infrastructure can shape the contours of an online gambling market. Stablecoins and other fintech rails promise faster deposits and withdrawals, which can improve user experience but also raise concerns about transaction velocity, money laundering and consumer loss. Maine’s decision will land amid these global experiments, raising questions about how payment tools will be supervised if the state opens its market.
What changes if Maine says yes—or no
The core question is not whether Mainers are gambling online; regulators have already warned that offshore and sweepstakes operators are courting users in the absence of a legal market. A “no” preserves that landscape, potentially limiting the state’s visibility into activity and leaving dispute resolution to unregulated platforms. It may also align with voter skepticism and concerns from addiction advocates who argue that legalization increases participation and normalizes high-risk behaviors.
A “yes” would trigger a race to write rules that align with best practices emerging in other states. That includes strict age and identity verification, deposit and loss limits, responsible gaming messaging, robust self-exclusion programs and real-time monitoring for suspicious play. It could also open revenue streams that fund enforcement, treatment and education. The experience in sports betting suggests policymakers should define limits on high-velocity products, set clear expectations for advertising and require transparent reporting that allows regulators to recalibrate quickly.
Either outcome carries political risk. Saying yes invites scrutiny if harm rises or enforcement lags. Saying no risks allowing the gray market to harden and ceding consumer protection to offshore actors. As other states’ experiences show—whether in Ohio’s moral-policy standoff or Missouri’s prop-bet clampdown—the details of implementation matter more than the headline decision. Maine’s choice this week will set the baseline for those details, determining who sets the rules, how fast they can adapt and who bears the risk when the market inevitably shifts.
