Maryland Online Casino Bill Faces Looming Deadline

The Maryland General Assembly saw a flurry of gambling-related activity this past week including lively testimony about the potential legalization of online casinos.

Legislators seemed united in a desire to clamp down on illegal online operators with sweepstakes casinos live in the state. The most polarizing issue during the gambling related hearings was centered on whether regulated online casinos should be Maryland’s next big revenue play.

There were no votes on any bills during Wednesday‘s Senate Budget and Taxation Committee meeting. Legislation faces a March 23 deadline to move from one chamber to the other, and the 2026 session is scheduled to wrap up on April 13.

Online casinos dominate discussion

Sen. Ron Watson, who has been the Senate’s leading voice for legal online casinos over the past several years, used his time during the hearing before the Senate’s Budget and Taxation Committee to make the case for SB 885. 

The bill seeks to authorize online casinos and bingo. He pitched the bill as a critical solution to “impending fiscal challenges” for the state’s Blueprint for Maryland’s Future fund, projecting that online casinos could generate $1.25 billion in tax revenue over a five-year period. He also emphasized that passed of the bill would help keep Maryland competitive with neighboring and nearby states where online casinos are legal (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and West Virginia).

Watson testified that “the question is not whether or not iGaming exists because it does, the question is whether or not we will regulate it responsibly” and asked if lawmakers would “keep pretending that prohibition is working when it clearly is not.”

“What this bill does is simply modernize the delivery of games that already exist the same as we did with sports betting a few years ago. And like sports betting, the data from other states is clear that when we legalize and regulate online gaming, players move away from the illegal sites.”

If passed, the bill would ultimately require approval via a voter referendum. Licenses would be available to existing retail casinos and sports wagering operators while bingo halls could offer online bingo. 

Stiff pushback on iGaming

Witnesses who testified against SB 885 included a cross section of union representatives representing casino workers, problem gambling experts, retail casino owners, and citizens who have struggled with gambling addiction.

While most of the licensed operators in the state have shown support for iGaming as some of them operate online casinos in other states, there were exceptions, including Mark Stewart of the Cordish Companies, the owners of Live! Casino Hotel Maryland.

Along with the problem gambling advocates, they argued that constant access to casino games on smartphones is highly addictive and will increase the number of citizens with gambling disorders.

“An increase in accessibility and convenience of ways to gamble is like pouring gasoline on a fire,” said Michael Calamino, a gambling addict in recovery who faces federal charges after stealing from his business. Another witness described the “mental obsession of having a casino in my pocket” and that it destroyed his marriage.

Other key gambling legislation

Even as SB 885 drew the sharpest debate and dominated the hearing, senators also gave time to other bills aimed at problem gambling and sports betting oversight.

• SB 862: This bill would dedicate 1% of sports betting and fantasy competition profits to the state’s Problem Gambling Fund. It also mandates a new prevalence study specifically focused on mobile gambling.
• SB 970: This consumer protection bill requires sports wagering operators to contract with an independent evaluator to rate their content, betting experts, and influencers.
• SB 652: The bill would make it a violation to operate or promote illegal online gambling with sweepstakes casinos or to “knowingly support” it and would treat violations as unfair or deceptive practices under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. The measure would let the state issue cease‑and‑desist orders, block URLs and freeze accounts.