Ohio’s attempt to legalize online casino gaming has run into heavy resistance, with a recent hearing highlighting the wide range of concerns from businesses, lawmakers, and interest groups. The hearing revealed how complex the road ahead could be for Senate Bill 197, which proposes major changes to the state’s gaming landscape.
Good to know
- Over 40 individuals gave testimony during the latest three-hour hearing on Ohio’s online casino bill.
- Most speakers opposed the bill or asked for changes, including major casino operators.
- No vote was held, and the bill remains stuck in committee with no timeline for advancement.
Out of the dozens who testified, only two companies—Fanatics and Rush Street Interactive—spoke in clear support of the bill. Even they asked for key changes, including lower taxes and license fees. Fanatics’ Brandt Iden pushed for doubling the number of available licenses from 11 to 22 while also recommending a more competitive fee structure.
Other well-known names such as FanDuel, BetMGM, Caesars, and DraftKings had expressed support in earlier hearings, but most did not weigh in again during the latest session.
High costs raise red flags
The bill proposes up to 11 online casino licenses, with each license tied to an existing Ohio casino or racino. But the price tag has raised eyebrows: a $50 million licensing fee—by far the highest in the country—and a tax rate between 36% and 40% depending on the relationship between the online operator and the in-state facility.
For example, companies like Caesars with an in-state footprint could benefit from the lower tax rate. In contrast, outside platforms such as FanDuel would pay the higher rate if they partner with a local venue.
Local businesses push back
One of the loudest concerns came from Miami Valley Gaming, which operates a racino in the state. It argued the bill would threaten current jobs. Other opponents included local bar owners, fraternal groups, grocery chains, and restaurant associations. Many urged lawmakers to allow video lottery terminal (VLT) games to offset what they believe would be revenue losses if online gaming expands.
Some business owners drew comparisons to Louisiana and Illinois, where VLTs are regulated and serve as an added income stream. Ohio groups want similar options included in the bill.
Lottery and online habits clash
Another controversial piece of the bill would allow online lottery ticket sales. The Ohio Grocers Association objected to this part, saying it could reduce foot traffic and sales in stores. Their argument ties into a broader concern about how digital services affect brick-and-mortar business models.
Although supporters of online gaming believe that legislation must adapt to modern consumer behavior, the hearing confirmed that entrenched business interests continue to resist that shift.
No timeline set
The Senate Select Committee on Gaming has now held three hearings on the proposal but has not taken a vote. While the issue remains on the table, the hearing made one thing clear: unless changes are made to satisfy a wide variety of interests, the bill will face a steep climb.
The post Ohio Bill for Online Casinos Faces Tough Questions appeared first on iGaming.org.