Virginia online casino push stalls in subcommittee
A push to legalize online casinos in Virginia hit a roadblock last week after Senate Bill 118 failed to get past the Senate General Laws and Technology Gaming Subcommittee with a 3-4 vote against it.
Senator Mamie Locke introduced SB 118 at the beginning of the year. If approved, the bill would legalize online casino gambling and allow each casino to offer up to three gambling platforms, with a US$2 million fee for each, as reported by Saturday Down South.
While the defeat doesn’t formally mean the end of online casino legalization, timing is now the biggest issue. The Virginia legislature adjourns in mid-March, and any bill needs to be passed by February 17, which makes any progress on SB 118 highly unlikely this year.
A separate proposal, House Bill 161, which would also legalize online casino gaming in the state, is still live, but doesn’t yet have a committee hearing date.
Debate around SB 118 echoed familiar arguments. Supporters highlighted online casinos as a major new source of tax revenue and argued that Virginians are already gambling online through unregulated platforms.
Opponents raised concerns about the effect on retail casinos and social harm.
One specific issue was regulation. The Virginia Lottery currently oversees online sports betting and lottery games, but some lawmakers questioned whether it could also manage online casinos, arguing that creating a Virginia Gaming Commission could take years.
Despite the vote, lawmakers acknowledged legalization is likely inevitable. Committee chair Jeremy McPike told Legal Sports Report that it was a question of improving safeguards, particularly around problem gambling.
Senator Locke also introduced a similar bill to legalize online gambling in 2024, but that bill ultimately failed during the 2025 regular session.
Charlotte Capewell brings her passion for storytelling and expertise in writing, researching, and the gambling industry to every article she writes. Her specialties include the US gambling industry, regulator legislation, igaming, and more.
Verticals:
Sectors:
Topics:
Dig Deeper
Related stories
The Backstory
Momentum meets resistance in Richmond
Virginia’s latest bid to legalize online casinos advanced far enough to get a hearing but not a path forward, underscoring how the state’s gaming policy remains in flux. Senate Bill 118, sponsored by Sen. Mamie Locke, failed in a 3-4 vote in a Senate gaming subcommittee, pushing the timeline for action into doubt with a mid-March adjournment looming and a Feb. 17 deadline for moving legislation. The defeat did not end the conversation. A parallel House vehicle, House Bill 161, still exists but lacks a committee date. And lawmakers again surfaced a central question: whether the Virginia Lottery can credibly expand its oversight from sports betting and lottery into full igaming, or if the state should stand up a separate regulator before authorizing online slots, table games and poker.
The policy fault lines are well established. Supporters argue Virginians are already gambling on unregulated sites and that legal, taxed platforms could deliver new revenue with consumer protections. Skeptics warn about displacement of retail casino jobs and elevated risks of addiction among young men, a concern highlighted in previous hearings. The debate is no longer about if Virginia will consider igaming, but how and when.
From study commissions to a 2026 reset
After a similar Locke bill was tabled late last year, lawmakers pivoted to a study-first approach. In December, they convened a joint subcommittee to test-market the framework for a Virginia Gaming Commission and weigh pros and cons of legalization. That hearing cataloged potential games and surfaced competing forecasts for revenue and social impact. The session set the stage for a longer runway and more modeling before any votes.
That caution has since hardened into a longer pause. In January, legislators agreed to push comprehensive action on igaming to 2026. The move, described in coverage of the delay to 2026, effectively resets expectations for operators and local stakeholders. The shelved framework contemplated up to 15 online casinos anchored by the state’s five land-based properties, a 15% tax on gross gaming revenue and a 2.5% allocation for responsible gambling. It also spotlighted industry resistance: Cordish Companies, which holds rights to Virginia’s fifth unbuilt casino, warned lawmakers that igaming could siphon customers from brick-and-mortar venues.
The study track remains active. Lawmakers met again to consider regulatory architecture, as chronicled in reporting on the ongoing debate over igaming regulation, and plan additional sessions before the next General Assembly weighs a full bill. That posture aligns with the Senate’s concerns about administrative capacity, a theme that recurred in this session’s subcommittee vote on SB 118.
The bills on the table and what they signal
Despite the setback, the session has clarified legislative priorities. SB 118 would have allowed each casino to host up to three skins at a US$2 million license fee per platform while leaving oversight with the Virginia Lottery. Meanwhile, Senate Bill 827—the earlier vehicle that was studied and then deferred—sketched a low tax rate by national standards and a multi-operator market tied to existing casinos. The House’s HB 161 keeps the conversation alive, but leadership has shown little appetite for rushing a vote without a consensus on governance.
These texts also telegraph Virginia’s strategic dilemma: move quickly to capture revenue and regulate an existing gray market, or sequence legalization behind institution-building and enhanced safeguarding. The subcommittee’s rejection of SB 118 suggests the latter path is prevailing for now.
Retail casinos, tax design and consumer safeguards
The biggest policy tradeoff centers on how to mitigate cannibalization of physical casinos while maximizing channelization into regulated online markets. The 15% tax rate floated in earlier drafts would have been among the lowest in legal igaming states, a bid to encourage participation and reduce offshore play. But high-channelization strategies can collide with concerns from operators invested in new Virginia resorts, who fear lower foot traffic, and with advocates focused on problem gambling.
Virginia’s hearings have leaned into those risks. Testimony highlighted elevated addiction risk among men ages 18 to 35 and emphasized the need for robust self-exclusion, spending tools and data-driven monitoring. The debate over whether to create a dedicated gaming commission also reflects a desire for specialized supervision that can adapt to online-specific risks. That tension—industry scale versus consumer safeguards—helped shape the subcommittee outcome on SB 118 and is likely to define any compromise in 2026.
Deadlines, vote counts and what could change
Process matters in Richmond. With a compressed calendar, a single unfavorable subcommittee vote can be decisive. Even supporters acknowledged the need to fortify the bill’s guardrails before floor action, particularly on funding for responsible gambling, integrity monitoring and age verification. Absent a late pivot in the House, the best-case scenario for proponents is incremental: advance technical work on a commission model, refine tax and licensing structures, and return next session with a broader coalition.
The House could still leverage HB 161 to register votes or extract concessions, but committee scheduling is a hurdle. If leadership opts to wait, the study committee’s work product will become the de facto blueprint, with stakeholders negotiating over tax levels, market access for brands, and a phased rollout tied to regulatory readiness.
National currents shaping Virginia’s calculus
Virginia is not legislating in a vacuum. Neighboring and peer states are testing different approaches to online wagering, creating political and policy spillovers. In Mississippi, the House is pursuing mobile sports betting for a third straight year with a fiscal twist: directing revenue to shore up pensions. That gambit, detailed in reporting on Mississippi’s renewed push, may not overcome Senate skepticism about revenue size, but it shows how earmarks can reframe the debate.
Regulatory experimentation is also expanding. Minnesota’s latest proposal would legalize mobile wagering and daily fantasy while banning push notifications to inactive users—an unusual consumer-protection provision meant to reduce harm from reengagement prompts. The approach, described in coverage of Minnesota’s bill, could inform Virginia’s eventual igaming standards as lawmakers weigh how aggressive to be on marketing and app design.
Elsewhere, officials are tightening guardrails. Ohio’s governor has pressed regulators to eliminate professional sports prop bets after player-related incidents, a move contested by some lawmakers who cite tax revenue and consumer choice. The clash, captured in reporting on Ohio’s prop bet dispute, mirrors Virginia’s balancing act between market growth and risk. Gov. Mike DeWine’s appeal to regulators is posted on the state’s site (official statement), while Rep. Brian Stewart defended props on social media (his post on X).
For Virginia, these crosscurrents point to a likely endgame: a measured rollout built on a purpose-built regulator, stricter advertising and play protections, and a tax design that seeks to draw play onshore without undercutting the state’s new resort casinos. The work between sessions will determine whether, when lawmakers return in 2026, the votes exist to turn a long-running debate into law.
