Virginia online gambling bill pushed to 2027
Virginia lawmakers have ended the 2026 legislative session without approving legislation to legalize online casinos, halting efforts that had advanced through both chambers.
Both Senate Bill 118 and House Bill 161 passed the state Senate and House of Delegates but failed to progress after each chamber rejected the other’s version, leaving no unified measure for final approval before adjournment.
A conference committee was formed to reconcile the proposals, but it failed to reach a compromise.
Both measures would have allowed land-based casinos to partner with up to three online operators, requiring platform fees of US$2 million and a further license fee of US$500,000, both valid for five years.
Each proposal also set a 20% tax on adjusted gross revenue, though disagreement over distribution remained unresolved.
The Senate Bill allocated 95% of the proceeds to an education fund, with 3% to the Gaming Regulatory Fund and 2% to the Problem Gambling Treatment Fund. The House Bill, on the other hand, sought to direct 89% of revenue to the general fund, with phased adjustments and smaller shares allocated to gambling treatment programs.
Regulatory oversight for the presumptive online casinos also remained unsettled. Lawmakers considered shifting authority away from the Virginia Lottery Board through separate bills that would create new regulatory bodies, the Virginia Lottery and Gaming Authority and the Virginia Gaming Commission.
Neither proposal advanced, and both the governance question and igaming legislation were deferred to 2027.
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
How Virginia’s iGaming effort reached a standstill
Virginia’s latest online casino push ended where many complex policy fights do: at the intersection of timing, turf and taxes. Lawmakers in both chambers advanced competing frameworks for legal internet casino gaming this session, then ran out of runway to reconcile them. The result delays a multibillion-dollar market opportunity and extends uncertainty for casinos, tech vendors and addiction services preparing for a digital expansion. The path here stretches back to an earlier pause for study, then a restart that exposed unresolved questions about who regulates, how much to tax and where the money goes.
From study hall to second try
Momentum ebbed early last year when senators shelved Sen. Mamie Locke’s initial framework to legalize iGaming and ordered deeper analysis. That pause pushed the conversation into 2026, with SB 827 deferred for study and reconsideration. The proposal envisioned up to fifteen online casino brands tethered to Virginia’s five land-based properties and a 15% tax rate, the lowest among states with legal iGaming. It would have steered 2.5% of taxes to responsible gambling programs and the balance to the general fund. The pushback was immediate. Cordish Companies, holding rights to an unbuilt fifth casino, argued virtual play would siphon visits and jobs from brick-and-mortar venues, an early sign that retail operators would not move in lockstep on iGaming.
That study period fed into a broader look at whether Virginia needed a dedicated regulator to manage the next phase of gambling expansion. Lawmakers convened a joint subcommittee to examine a proposed Virginia Gaming Commission, taking testimony on market size, consumer safeguards and economic impacts. Supporters pointed to potential long-term revenue, while public health experts flagged addiction risks among young men and warned of knock-on effects like debt and mental health crises. The review left members with homework still in progress, with plans for more meetings before the next session, as detailed in ongoing deliberations over iGaming regulation and a new commission.
Senate whiplash and a 2027 start date
The Senate returned to the issue this year with SB 118, another Locke bill that initially stumbled, then squeaked through after a procedural do-over. The measure would legalize online table games and slots and tether platforms to existing casinos, with a framework that included platform fees and revenue taxes. Importantly, senators amended the bill to delay launch until July 1, 2027, reflecting caution about market preparation and oversight capacity. The narrow passage followed a failed 19–20 vote and a tense reconsideration that flipped the outcome, as chronicled in coverage of the Senate’s razor-thin approval and 2027 timeline. Fiscal estimates suggested billions in net revenue across the first five years, with more than $1 billion flowing to the commonwealth. Even so, the debate revealed bipartisan divisions over ubiquity of access and potential harm, reinforcing the need for clear funding commitments to prevention and treatment.
Yet committee dynamics had already signaled trouble. Before the floor vote, SB 118 failed in the Senate’s Gaming Subcommittee amid concerns about whether the Virginia Lottery could stretch from sports betting and lottery into full iGaming oversight. Some senators floated a new gaming commission to handle the load, though building one could take years. The episode, captured in reporting on the subcommittee stall and regulator concerns, previewed a sticking point that later complicated compromise with the House.
House reversal and diverging priorities
Across the Capitol, the House mounted its own push with HB 161. The measure survived a dramatic floor sequence: it failed on the first try, then passed 67-30 after an hour of renewed debate. Proponents framed legalization as a way to regulate an unlicensed market already operating in Virginia and to capture tax revenue for public needs. Opponents emphasized addiction risks and access on smartphones. The volatility underscored how narrow the margin for error had become and how persuasion in the moment could swing outcomes. The episode is detailed in coverage of the House’s about-face on HB 161.
Substance mattered as much as votes. While both chambers aligned on many structural elements — allowing each casino to partner with multiple online brands, imposing multimillion-dollar platform and license fees, and taxing adjusted gross revenue — they diverged on where those dollars should go. The Senate’s version leaned toward education, with defined slices for regulation and the state’s treatment fund. House leaders pushed to direct a larger share to the general fund with phased adjustments and more modest dedicated allocations for problem gambling. Those choices reflect broader budget philosophies and different views on earmarks versus flexible spending when a new revenue stream comes online.
Regulatory turf fight and the cost of delay
Beneath the tax and timing debate sat an institutional question: who should regulate iGaming. Some senators wanted to stand up a dedicated gaming authority, citing the breadth of duties as casino, sports betting and lottery markets converge. Others argued the Virginia Lottery Board had the expertise and infrastructure to expand quickly. Those arguments date to last year’s study period and were still unresolved this session, as seen in the commission feasibility discussions and the subcommittee’s hesitation over regulator capacity. The inability to settle the question in time for conference talks proved pivotal. Without consensus on governance and revenue distribution, negotiators lacked the final contours of an implementable regime.
The stakes of another deferral are tangible. For the state, each year of delay leaves tax dollars on the table and allows unregulated offshore operators to maintain market share. For casinos and potential partners, the pause complicates investment timelines for technology, compliance and marketing. For public health planners, a slower rollout postpones the dedicated funding streams they seek to expand prevention, treatment and data collection. And for opponents, the delay is a chance to refine guardrails, test additional restrictions on advertising or credit use, and measure how retail casinos fare without a parallel digital channel. Those threads will inform the next round of drafting as lawmakers revisit the issue.
One lesson from the past two sessions is clear: process can be as decisive as policy. Early committee defeats, razor-thin floor reversals and competing fiscal philosophies all shaped a landscape where conference negotiators ran out of time. When the General Assembly returns to iGaming, expect drafters to front-load agreement on regulator structure, lock in a launch horizon palatable to both chambers and smooth the revenue splits that tripped up a final deal. The next attempt may look more incremental, but the market forces pushing Virginia toward regulation are unlikely to recede.
