Trending
Ohio stands at a crossroads in its gambling policy. In May 2025, House Bill 298 (HB 298) was introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives. The bill introduced online casino platforms for physical casinos, allowing them to branch out into the digital world. They could offer various popular table games, like roulette and poker, and even live dealers if they have the capacity for them. This bill also covered sweepstakes casinos. All they had to do was pay the licensing fee of $50 million for the first 5 years of operation. The tax rate was set at 28% on their gross gaming revenue, and many thought that was the end of it, but here we are.
Supporters of HB 298 argue that Ohio residents already gamble online with offshore sites, many of which operate beyond state regulation. One backer claimed that Ohio might be losing between $600 million and $2.2 billion annually to unlicensed platforms. That kind of figure naturally catches legislators' attention. Meanwhile, the state's current sports betting sector tells a complementary story: in 2024, Ohio sportsbooks handled approximately $9 billion in wagers, generating over $180 million in tax revenue.
And with clear requirements for sweepstakes casinos drawing interest from players, the potential for growth in both sweepstakes and online casinos is evident. The logic goes: if sports wagers can produce that scale, then online casinos could deliver even more. On that premise, lawmakers in Columbus see both revenue potential and a regulated channel to shift play from questionable operators into a state-licensed environment.
But not everyone is on board. Mike DeWine, Ohio's governor, is pretty direct about his stance. His main concern is the protection of his voters from potential dangers, and he wishes for more regulations mimicking those in other states. This and his recent tax cut to the wealthy, alongside other budget decisions, are in the spotlight now, to say the least. But critics of his stance argue that tighter regulations can only make things worse. As previous attempts have shown, the tighter the restrictions, the harder it is to enforce such rulings, and they can often backfire and produce the opposite results.
Another dimension of the debate concerns gaming platforms operating in grey areas at the moment. These sites operate in legal gray areas by offering payment models not currently covered, but also not prohibited. HB 298 seeks to crack down on such operators by explicitly banning those models in Ohio. Provisions in the bill require that any licensed casino operator must already be authorised for land-based gaming in the state.
Out-of-state pure online operators would effectively be blocked. The proposed language even mandates that each licensee may run only one online platform and that servers be located within Ohio. That structure is designed to both protect the existing retail market and to ensure regulatory oversight remains feasible. Ohio’s legal scene continues to be turbulent, and with its new congressional map, it remains to be seen how this situation will resolve.
Yet some analysts caution that even if HB 298 passes, there are operational and structural risks. A tax rate of 28 percent is higher than the 20 percent levied on online sports betting now in Ohio, while some argue such a rate could dampen promotional budgets, reduce operator risk-taking, or push players back toward unregulated markets. Brick-and-mortar casinos testify that bill language is too favourable to online play and may threaten casino employees, local eateries, and broader economic ecosystems built around physical properties.