Ohio legislators continued deliberations on two competing proposals that would bring regulated internet casino gaming to the state. The bills would permit online slots, poker, and roulette games while creating new tax revenue streams for state programs.
House Bill 298 received attention during a recent House Finance Committee hearing. Advocates for the bill pointed to widespread illegal online wagering that takes place across Ohio. An industry representative testified that residents currently place approximately $5 billion in annual wagers on unauthorized platforms. Bringing these activities under state regulation could produce more than $600 million in yearly tax revenue.
The growing popularity of online gaming has prompted many players to seek platforms that offer quick access to winnings. Modern fast withdrawal casinos have responded to this demand by providing rapid payout processing, often completing transactions within hours rather than days. These sites prioritize efficient customer service and streamlined verification processes.
Representative Brian Stewart, who sponsors the House proposal, described internet gaming as a logical extension of Ohio’s current casino operations. The legislation would tap new revenue sources without threatening established businesses. The bill allows only existing casino and racino operators to obtain licenses, and it establishes a 28 percent tax rate on gross gaming revenue, similar to Michigan’s approach.
This tax structure would direct funds to the state’s general budget, with one percent going toward related support services. Legislative projections place annual revenue between $400 million and $800 million.
During committee proceedings, the opposition voiced its concerns. A representative from a national coalition opposed to internet gaming described online gambling as potentially problematic, warning that it could be financially and socially harmful. He noted that regulated platforms often fail to eliminate black market activity. Governor Mike DeWine has expressed reservations, stating that mobile gaming platforms would place a casino in anyone’s hands around the clock, creating new regulatory challenges.
Casino industry representatives provided mixed responses. One gaming company executive argued that regulated internet gambling would attract new customers rather than damage physical casino revenues. He referenced data from neighboring states showing many online players had not previously visited brick-and-mortar casinos.
Critics pointed to remaining challenges in tax policy. The proposal sets a $50 million licensing fee and limits promotional offers to physical casino locations. Critics viewed these restrictions as placing online operators at a competitive disadvantage.
Senate Bill 197, introduced by a state senator, proposes more expansive legislation. The Senate proposal covers online lottery games and horse race wagering. Its tax rate reaches 36 percent with licensing costs of $50 million initially and $5 million for renewals.
The two bills share several features. Both limit licenses to existing land-based operators and place oversight with the Ohio Casino Control Commission. Each proposal requires players to be 21 or older and located physically within state borders. These measures would place Ohio among states that offer regulated online casino options. Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, West Virginia, Delaware, Connecticut, and Rhode Island currently allow such activities.
Legislators will have limited time as the legislative break in July approaches. Supporters emphasize the need for more revenue to fund public services. Opponents emphasize caution in light of regulatory challenges and market disruption. Supporters argue that a transparent, regulated online environment would be preferable to an uncontrolled illegal market.
Lawmakers must weigh fiscal opportunities against consumer protection as discussions continue. The decisions they make will determine the future of online gaming regulation in Ohio. State officials face pressure from both gaming industry advocates and public health groups as they work to shape potential legislation.