Inside The Unique Details, Timing Of Ohio’s New Online Casino Bill

An Ohio lawmaker filed an online casino bill last week that includes some unique details. 

It comes at a noteworthy time for Ohio, where in July the state legislature released an in-depth, 354-page report on several gambling topics — including the potential of iGaming in Ohio.

The lack of a positive consensus supporting online casinos in that report, as well as other aspects particular to this piece of legislation, may make it unlikely to pass.

But not impossible.

Let’s get into it.

Lame-duck matters

The bill, SB 312, was filed by Sen. Niraj Antani on Wednesday, Sept. 4. 

This is an election year, so the rest of the times state lawmakers meet — in November and December — will be part of a “lame-duck” session. This is when some lawmakers have already been voted out of office. Pressing matters take priority in lame-duck sessions as outgoing senators try to finish unfinished business before their terms end.

A new iGaming bill without much fanfare may not move the needle enough to gain the needed attention to progress in a lame-duck session.

Also, Antani, who represents Dayton, isn’t up for re-election, so this bill would need to generate momentum quickly before its sponsor leaves in 2025.

15% tax rate, annual PG report

SB 312 would allow existing casino operators in Ohio to apply for iGaming licenses.

There are currently four such operators:

• Hard Rock Cincinnati
• Hollywood Casino Toledo
• Hollywood Casino Columbus
• JACK Cleveland

Hard Rock obviously has Hard Rock Sportsbook for Ohio sports betting, while Hollywood Casino has ESPN Bet and JACK Cleveland has betJACK — if that’s any indication as to potential iGaming apps.

The bill stipulates that the Ohio Casino Control Commission would oversee iGaming. It also would require the OCCC to annually “engage a person or entity with expertise in the area of problem gambling and gambling addiction to prepare and distribute a report concerning the impact of internet casino gaming on the rates of problem gambling and gambling addiction in this state.”

As for taxes, SB 312 sets the online casino revenue tax rate at 15% of gross gaming revenue, which is lower than the 20% sports betting operators are taxed in Ohio. If SB 312 becomes law, Ohio would become the first state that has both online sports betting and online casinos where the iGaming revenue has a lower tax rate.

Licensing fees and renewal

The iGaming license would cost $650,000 in total — $100,000 for the application fee, $300,000 for the license fee, and $250,000 to go into the problem gambling fund. Each license would last just one year, and renewals would cost $500,000 — a $250,000 renewal fee and $250,000 more into the state’s problem gambling fund.

SB 312 also directly addresses affiliate marketing groups, setting a limit to only five for online casinos that the commission may license at any one time. For sports betting, online affiliates are required to be licensed in Ohio, but there is no limit on the amount.

Antani’s bill also seems to open the door to the multi-state online poker deals that connect players from New Jersey, Nevada, Delaware, West Virginia, and Michigan.

“The commission may enter into reciprocal agreements with other jurisdictions to allow permit holders to accept internet casino gaming wagers from individuals located in those jurisdictions, to the extent consistent with federal law and the laws of this state,” the bill reads.

Also an interesting thing to note: SB 312 specifically allows for online casino games that are currently allowed — or will be allowed in the future — in Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

How big is the appetite?

The 11-lawmaker Study Commission on the Future of Gaming in Ohio, which penned the 354-page report on the future of Ohio gambling, heard testimony from a handful of major commercial operators.

Caesars, MGM Resorts, Boyd (which has a partnership with FanDuel), and PENN Entertainment (which owns both Hollywood Casinos in Ohio) supported the idea of iGaming coming to Ohio.

The Sports Betting Alliance, which represents BetMGM, DraftKings, FanDuel, and Fanatics, was also among those who submitted support for online casinos.

In a written testimony to the commission, Ryan Soultz, Boyd Gaming’s Vice President of Governmental Affairs, pointed out how an unregulated Bovada page popped up as the top search result when he looked “Ohio online casino” on Google. 

“When Ohio took the step to legalize and regulate sports wagering in 2021,” Soultz wrote, “a key policy consideration was to create a legal, regulated market to combat the unregulated, offshore sites that Ohioans were utilizing. Many of these same offshore companies have illegal, unregulated iGaming platforms.”

But not all land-based operators in Ohio felt the same way.

Daniel Reinhard, JACK’s Senior Vice President Government Affairs, was blunt in his testimony.

“iGaming is a threat,” he wrote, “to Ohio businesses and Ohio employment.”

Craig Robinson, President and General Manager of Miami Valley Gaming & Racing, a racino between Cincinnati and Dayton, wrote about concerns with iGaming helping more out-of-state companies than it would help Ohio companies.

“MVG urges Legislators to be mindful of the manner and timing of any potential future expansion of gaming,” he wrote, “so as to avoid creating a situation where gaming dollars are diverted from established in-state physical venues to electronic gaming companies, most of which are located outside of Ohio or the United States.”

So … what are the odds?

All in all, the commission came to no conclusion regarding online casinos. The lack of a clear recommendation — plus a clear split between land-based operators in Ohio — doesn’t necessarily mean SB 312 has no shot.

But it’s not a positive sign for quick movement, which SB 312 needs to stay alive.

In his analysis for Casino Reports, industry expert Steve Ruddock highlighted Ohio as one of 18 states to watch that could be the next state to legalize online casinos.

However, Ohio was one of the 12 states Ruddock labeled as “So, You’re Saying There’s a Chance.” He classified six other states — New Hampshire, Maine, Louisiana, New York, Arkansas, and Florida — as “Viable Candidates” that are more likely than the other 12.