Ohio igaming hopes turn to 2027 following Acton’s gubernatorial win
Ohio’s push to legalize online casinos could find new life in 2027, with Democrat Amy Acton set to become the state’s next governor.
Acton defeated Republican Vivek Ramaswamy in the 3 November election and will take office on 11 January 2027, the same day term-limited Governor Mike DeWine steps down.
The change is a notable one for the industry. DeWine has long opposed igaming, saying in late 2025 that putting a casino in everyone’s hands around the clock would cause more harm through gambling addiction.
Acton, meanwhile, has signaled she is open to the idea. Speaking to the Statehouse News Bureau in September, she described online gaming as a potential revenue source to help fund cost-of-living proposals in the state.
The former Ohio health director added that she wants the right regulatory environment in place, including an end to predatory advertising and protections for young people, promising “a very nuanced and comprehensive strategy.”
She has not, however, released a detailed plan or endorsed any specific bill.
The most likely vehicle is House Bill 298, introduced in May 2025 by Rep. Brian Stewart and Rep. Marilyn John. The bill would legalize online casino games, ban sweepstakes casinos and place the market under the Ohio Casino Control Commission.
Under the proposal, licenses would be limited to the state’s four casinos and seven racinos, with operators taxed at 28% of internet gaming receipts.
Stewart has indicated the bill is unlikely to move before the current legislative session ends on 17 December, but believes it could gain traction under Acton when the new session opens on 4 January 2027.
This comes even as Stewart acknowledges the road ahead won’t be easy, pointing to concerns over cannibalization of land-based casinos and lawmakers who simply don’t like gambling.
Analysts are taking note. In a note last week, Truist gaming analyst Barry Jonas wrote that Acton’s support for regulated online casinos could improve the chances of igaming legalization in the state.
Dig Deeper
Related stories
The Backstory
A change in Columbus resets the odds
Ohio’s online casino debate has been shaped as much by the governor’s office as by the details of the bills moving through the Statehouse. For the past two years, the central obstacle has been Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican who signed sports betting into law but later became one of the state’s most visible skeptics of further gambling expansion. His opposition helped stall efforts to authorize internet casino games even as lawmakers introduced measures to bring online slots and table games under state regulation.
That backdrop makes Amy Acton’s election consequential for operators, casino owners and lawmakers looking for new revenue. Acton has not embraced a specific bill, but her public comments have left the industry with a plausible path after DeWine leaves office. The question is whether her openness to online casinos can be converted into a legislative coalition in 2027, when Ohio’s next governor and a new General Assembly begin work.
DeWine’s resistance hardened after sports betting
Ohio launched legal sports betting after DeWine signed House Bill 29 in December 2021, allowing mobile wagering and retail betting at casinos and other locations. The market quickly became a major source of tax revenue, but it also intensified concerns about advertising, compulsive gambling and the pressure placed on athletes. Those concerns later turned DeWine from a governor who approved betting expansion into one who publicly questioned whether Ohio should have gone down that road.
In late 2025, DeWine said he regretted signing sports betting into law, citing the reach of gambling companies and their advertising budgets. His reversal came as betting-related scandals and investigations drew national attention, including cases tied to professional sports. For igaming advocates, that shift mattered because it showed DeWine’s concerns were not limited to one product. He had become skeptical of the broader online gambling ecosystem.
His opposition to internet casino expansion was direct. At the Ohio State Fair, DeWine said he was “not for it,” warning that legalizing online slots and table games would put a casino in everyone’s hands around the clock. That stance, detailed in Complete iGaming’s coverage of how the Ohio governor opposed igaming expansion, set a clear boundary for lawmakers considering new gambling legislation before the end of his term.
The 2025 bills created a framework, not a consensus
Lawmakers did not wait for a new administration to start drafting online casino policy. Two proposals emerged in 2025: House Bill 298 and Senate Bill 197. Both sought to legalize forms of online gambling, but they differed in scope. The House measure, sponsored by Rep. Brian Stewart and Rep. Marilyn John, focused on online casino games through the state’s existing casinos and racinos. The Senate version went further by contemplating a broader menu that included ilottery and horse racing wagers.
House Bill 298 became the more politically viable template because it tied licenses to Ohio’s established casino and racino operators and placed oversight with the Ohio Casino Control Commission. The bill proposed a 28% tax on internet gaming receipts and would ban sweepstakes casinos, a provision aimed at closing off a fast-growing gray market that has drawn scrutiny in multiple states. Supporters argued the bill would regulate activity that already exists offshore or in quasi-legal forms while generating significant tax revenue for the state.
Stewart framed the proposal as an extension of Ohio’s existing gambling policy rather than a radical expansion. His argument was simple: Ohio already allows casinos, racinos and online sports betting, so online casino games would combine legal products already present in the state. Opponents saw it differently, warning that mobile casino apps are more continuous and potentially more addictive than retail gambling or sports betting tied to scheduled events.
Addiction warnings became the opposition’s strongest message
DeWine’s critique focused on access and frequency. In remarks covered by Complete iGaming, the governor warned of rising addiction risks if online casino legislation passed, saying smartphones could make gambling available at any hour, including to young people. He did not necessarily promise a veto, but his message gave opponents a clear line of attack: igaming is not just another tax measure, but a product that changes the availability and intensity of gambling.
That concern has been echoed by brick-and-mortar casino interests that fear online casinos would cannibalize retail revenue and reduce employment tied to physical properties. Their argument is economic as well as social. Land-based casinos require major capital investments, large workforces and vendor networks. Online platforms can scale with far fewer employees. That has made cannibalization one of the most persistent objections in Ohio’s debate, especially in districts with casino or racino jobs.
For supporters, the counterargument is that regulation, taxation and responsible gambling controls are preferable to leaving consumers in unregulated markets. They also point to potential revenue exceeding hundreds of millions of dollars, money that could be used for public programs. Acton’s comments about online gaming as a possible revenue source for cost-of-living measures fit into that frame, though her emphasis on guardrails suggests she will not simply adopt industry language without conditions.
Sports betting controversies complicated the igaming push
The political environment worsened for gambling expansion after DeWine called on the Ohio Casino Control Commission to remove proposition bets from the state’s legal sports wagering menu. His request followed a Major League Baseball investigation involving Cleveland Guardians pitchers Emmanuel Clase and Luis Ortiz, who were placed on paid leave. DeWine also cited threats made to University of Dayton athletes related to prop bets. The governor’s formal statement is posted on the state’s website, where he called for the commission to remove prop bets.
Prop bets became a proxy fight over how much Ohio should restrict legal gambling once problems emerge. DeWine argued that bets tied to individual athletes and discrete in-game events create integrity risks and expose players to harassment. That position aligned with a broader national debate about micro-betting, insider information and player vulnerability.
Stewart took the opposite view, arguing that adults should be free to place legal wagers and that prop bets account for a meaningful share of Ohio’s sports betting tax revenue. Complete iGaming reported that the Ohio lawmaker opposed the governor’s push to ban prop bets, underscoring the divide between revenue-focused legislators and a governor increasingly focused on harm reduction. The dispute matters for igaming because it previews the arguments likely to dominate any 2027 debate: whether Ohio should expand regulated markets to raise money and channel demand, or restrict access because mobile gambling has outpaced safeguards.
Why 2027 is now the industry’s target
With DeWine term-limited and Acton preparing to take office, supporters see 2027 as the first realistic opening for online casino legalization. Stewart has already indicated the current session is unlikely to produce movement before it ends, making the next session the practical battleground. That timeline gives stakeholders more than a year to refine tax rates, licensing rules, advertising limits and responsible gambling requirements.
Acton’s position is not a blank check. Her comments suggest interest in revenue but also concern about predatory advertising and protections for young people. That combination could lead to a more restrictive bill than operators would prefer, with tighter marketing standards, stronger age-verification rules, more funding for treatment and possibly limits on promotions. It also could make legalization more palatable to Democrats and skeptical Republicans who might otherwise resist another gambling expansion after the sports betting backlash.
The stakes are substantial. Ohio is one of the largest untapped online casino markets in the U.S., with an existing sports betting infrastructure and a set of licensed casinos and racinos that could launch quickly if authorized. But the same factors that make the state attractive to operators also make it politically sensitive. Mobile betting’s rapid growth gave lawmakers a revenue model. It also gave opponents examples of aggressive marketing, athlete harassment and public regret from the governor who signed the original law.
That history explains why Acton’s win is being treated as a reset, not a guarantee. The path to igaming in Ohio will depend on whether lawmakers can separate online casino regulation from the controversies surrounding sports betting, or at least convince enough colleagues that tighter regulation is the answer to those controversies rather than a reason to stop expansion altogether.
