Ohio igaming proposal would restrict promotions and licenses to land-based casinos: reports
Ohio lawmakers are considering an online casino framework that would restrict how operators use promotional incentives and limit igaming licenses to the state’s existing land-based casinos and racinos, according to sources.
Under the proposal outlined by Representative Brian Stewart, igaming operators wouldn’t be permitted to offer promotional credits for online play. Instead, incentives would have to be redeemable at physical gambling venues.
In addition, the proposal would restrict igaming licenses to the state’s existing in-person casinos and racinos. This approach aims to give Ohio’s 11 brick-and-mortar casinos and racinos a direct role in any future online casino market.
Stewart said avoiding conflict between online operators, casinos and racinos would be critical to the bill’s progress, adding that if the proposal became a “turf fight” between gaming interests, it would be “dead on Day One.”
Stewart also added that the proposal was partly shaped by the state’s online sports betting market, where major sportsbook operators like DraftKings and FanDuel used promotions to compete for customers after the regulated market launched in January 2023.
He said that the proposed structure could help address concerns from land-based gambling establishments about the competition online gaming poses
The framework comes as Ohio continues to debate whether to legalize online casino gaming. Stewart cited estimates that regulated igaming could generate up to US$400 million in annual state revenue.
If introduced, the framework would mark a major expansion of Ohio’s regulated gambling market by adding online casino gaming to its existing retail casino and sports betting sectors. Neighboring states Michigan, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia already have competitive regulated igaming markets.
The proposal is also being considered alongside efforts to change Ohio’s existing sports betting market.
In July this year, Representatives Johnathan Newman and Beth Lear introduced House Bill 971, or the “Save Ohio Sports Act.” The legislation would restrict certain online sports betting activities while enabling in-person wagering to continue.
Dig Deeper
Related stories
2025/07/25: Ohio governor opposes igaming expansion
2026/05/03: PAGCOR releases new regulatory framework governing live-dealer studios streaming
2025/05/21: Ohio lawmakers launch new online gambling bill
2025/07/01: Social and Promotional Games Association urges New Jersey governor to veto sweepstakes ban
2025/07/25: Ohio governor opposes igaming expansion
2026/05/03: PAGCOR releases new regulatory framework governing live-dealer studios streaming
2025/05/21: Ohio lawmakers launch new online gambling bill
2025/07/01: Social and Promotional Games Association urges New Jersey governor to veto sweepstakes ban
The Backstory
Ohio’s online casino debate shifts from whether to how
Ohio’s latest igaming proposal reflects a political recalibration more than a simple expansion bill. Lawmakers are no longer debating online casino gambling in a vacuum. They are trying to design a framework that can survive objections from land-based casinos, racinos, regulators, responsible gambling advocates and a governor who has already said he opposes putting casino games on phones around the clock.
The reported framework from Rep. Brian Stewart would limit licenses to Ohio’s existing 11 casinos and racinos and sharply restrict promotional credits by requiring incentives tied to physical gambling venues rather than online play. That structure is intended to answer the central concern that has followed every recent online casino discussion in Columbus: whether digital gambling would complement the state’s brick-and-mortar gaming industry or cannibalize it.
The approach also shows how the rollout of online sports betting has shaped the igaming debate. Sports betting went live in Ohio in January 2023 with heavy promotional spending by national operators. DraftKings, FanDuel and other brands used bonus credits to acquire customers, a strategy that helped accelerate adoption but also intensified scrutiny over advertising, inducements and gambling risks. Stewart’s reported plan appears designed to prevent a similar promotional arms race in online casino gaming.
Earlier bills put casinos and racinos at the center
The new framework builds on a legislative path that began with broader attempts to authorize online casino games. In May, Stewart was already developing legislation to legalize virtual poker, slots and table games, arguing the state could generate additional revenue by extending gambling activity that already exists in physical casinos to phones and laptops. That effort followed a July 2024 report from a state commission that examined igaming and ilottery and found that other states had seen meaningful tax revenue gains without clear evidence of reduced in-person lottery sales.
But the same review also underscored the political vulnerability of any proposal that appeared to weaken Ohio’s four casinos and seven racinos. The state’s existing gambling properties employ thousands of workers and operate under a framework voters and lawmakers accepted before mobile wagering changed the market. That history helps explain why Stewart’s current thinking reportedly would keep online casino licenses within the existing land-based system.
That direction was also reflected when House Republicans introduced House Bill 298 to legalize online slots and table games through casinos and racinos. Sponsored by Stewart and Rep. Marilyn John, the measure proposed a 28% tax on internet gaming companies and excluded online lottery products and horse racing wagers. Senate Bill 197 took a different approach, proposing a 36% tax rate that could rise to 40% if a casino or racino used a management company to operate its igaming platform. Both bills anticipated hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue through taxes and licensing fees, while setting aside 1% for gambling addiction programs.
Revenue projections collide with DeWine’s opposition
Supporters have made revenue the strongest case for legalization. Stewart and other backers have argued Ohio already permits casino gambling, slots and online sports betting, making online casino games a logical technological extension rather than a fundamentally new activity. Estimates tied to recent proposals have ranged from $400 million to more than $600 million in annual state revenue, depending on tax rates, market design and participation.
That argument runs into a clear obstacle in Gov. Mike DeWine. The governor, who approved online sports betting, later described that decision as a mistake and has publicly opposed igaming. As reported in coverage of DeWine’s opposition to online casino expansion, he said at the Ohio State Fair that he was “not for it,” citing concerns that 24-hour casino access on mobile devices would worsen gambling addiction and related harm.
DeWine’s position matters even if lawmakers continue advancing bills. A governor skeptical of igaming can influence the pace of hearings, the shape of responsible gambling provisions and the appetite among legislators who might otherwise be attracted to new tax revenue. His stance also gives political cover to opponents who argue that casino-style gambling is different from sports betting because of its speed, availability and frequency of play.
That resistance has forced proponents to narrow the sales pitch. Rather than framing igaming solely as a revenue generator, the latest proposal appears to package it as a controlled expansion that protects existing employers, limits digital-only promotions and keeps the economic benefits tied to properties already operating in Ohio.
Sports betting troubles raise the regulatory stakes
Ohio’s sports betting experience has become a cautionary example in the broader gambling debate. Since legalization, state officials and lawmakers have grappled with advertising practices, athlete harassment, integrity issues and funding methods. The Ohio Casino Control Commission has moved to prohibit credit cards for sports betting deposits, a policy supported by responsible gambling advocates who warn that credit access can allow bettors to wager with borrowed money.
The regulatory push was outlined in coverage of Ohio’s expected ban on credit card sports betting deposits. The proposed rule change would amend state regulations to block credit cards as a funding method, pending procedural approval. The debate overlaps with concerns lawmakers have raised about how difficult it can be to track betting behavior across multiple online platforms.
Those concerns intensified after controversies involving sports wagering and proposition bets, including scandals tied to Cleveland Guardians pitchers. DeWine’s regret over signing the sports betting law and the regulator’s action on credit cards have created a more skeptical climate for any new online gambling product. For igaming supporters, that means a bill must anticipate questions not only about tax revenue and market access but also about consumer protection, data monitoring and addiction services.
The “Save Ohio Sports Act,” introduced by Reps. Jonathan Newman and Beth Lear, shows how far some lawmakers are willing to go. The bill would make online sports betting illegal while allowing more limited in-person wagering. Though its prospects remain uncertain, its introduction signals that the legislature is not only considering expansion. It is also considering retrenchment.
Land-based protection becomes the path to viability
The most consequential element of the current proposal may be its attempt to avoid a fight between national online operators and Ohio’s land-based gambling businesses. Casino and racino operators have warned that online casino gaming can reduce visitation, weaken food and beverage sales and put physical jobs at risk. Industry opponents have argued that digital platforms require far less capital investment and fewer employees than destination casinos.
By restricting licenses to existing casinos and racinos, lawmakers could make those properties gatekeepers for the market. That would resemble models in several states where online casino operators enter through partnerships with land-based license holders. It could also reduce opposition from incumbent operators by giving them a direct financial stake in digital growth.
The promotion limits are equally important. If online credits must be redeemed at physical venues, operators would have less ability to subsidize online play aggressively and more incentive to drive traffic back to casinos and racinos. That design would depart from the sports betting launch model, where promotional offers were central to market share battles.
Neighboring Michigan, Pennsylvania and West Virginia already operate regulated igaming markets, adding competitive pressure on Ohio. But Ohio’s political environment is more complicated than a border comparison suggests. Lawmakers are weighing a potentially large revenue stream against concerns about addiction, market disruption and the aftereffects of sports betting. The latest framework suggests igaming may advance only if it is structured as an extension of the existing casino system, not as a free-standing digital market dominated by national brands.
