US iGaming legalization efforts pick up speed in Virginia and Maine

US iGaming Legalization Efforts are back in the spotlight as Virginia and Maine move in very different ways to expand regulated online casinos and poker. One state is drafting a broad, fee heavy framework that would put iGaming under the lottery, while the other is on the verge of becoming the eighth legal iGaming state by granting exclusivity to tribes.

Taken together, these developments capture the push and pull shaping America’s next phase of online casino expansion. Legislators want tax revenue and stronger oversight, operators want a workable path to market, and opponents are sharpening arguments around consumer harm and political legitimacy.

Virginia proposes a comprehensive online casino and poker framework

In Richmond, a newly introduced proposal, House Bill 161, aims to authorize regulated internet casino gaming in Virginia. The bill was prefiled on 6 January and is set to be formally introduced on 14 January, but even supporters acknowledge it faces a difficult path.

What makes HB 161 notable is scope. It is described as one of the most comprehensive expansions of Virginia’s gambling framework since legal sports betting launched, and it is the first fully drafted attempt to formally authorize online casino gaming after years of intermittent discussion that never advanced as standalone legislation.

Who would regulate Virginia iGaming

HB 161 would place internet gaming under oversight of the Virginia Lottery Board. The bill’s regulatory requirements are designed to closely align with existing sports betting rules, including geolocation controls, identity verification, and a minimum participation age of 21.

That alignment matters strategically. By anchoring iGaming to the compliance model already used for online sports betting, proponents can argue the state is not building from scratch, even if lawmakers have previously pointed to regulatory complexity as a reason to hold back.

What games Virginia would allow online

The bill proposes a menu of familiar iGaming products, including slots, table games, poker, and live dealer offerings streamed from licensed studios. Those studios could be located inside or outside Virginia, a detail that could influence how much operational footprint ultimately lands in state.

From a market perspective, live dealer often becomes a political bridge product. It can be framed as more controlled and more transparent than offshore alternatives, even though it still raises questions about saturation and consumer exposure.

Virginia would limit iGaming to land based casino licensees

Under HB 161, only licensed land based casino operators would be able to offer iGaming, and each could run up to three separate online platforms, each requiring separate licensing and substantial upfront fees. Each platform could operate under a single distinct brand, and a separate brand would also be possible for poker.

This structure reads like a deliberate balancing act. The state gets a tighter universe of licensees to supervise, and existing casino stakeholders get the first chance to participate. In return, the bill extracts significant costs and attempts to manage the fear that iGaming will drain foot traffic from physical venues.

Fees, taxes, and the hold harmless approach

The proposed cost of entry is material. An online gaming operator licence would cost $500,000 for a five year term, and each individual platform would require a $2m notice of intent fee plus a $1m renewal fee.

On revenue, HB 161 would impose a 15% tax on adjusted gross gaming revenue, payable monthly. Of that tax, 5% would go to the Problem Gambling Treatment and Support Fund, while the remainder would largely flow to the general fund.

In a telling political signal, the bill would also create an Internet Gaming Hold Harmless Fund, allocating 6% until 2030 to offset revenue losses claimed by brick and mortar casino operators attributable to online gaming. That fund is an explicit acknowledgment of the core opposition argument, that online casinos could cannibalize existing gambling and entertainment spend.

Virginia also targets online sweepstakes gambling

HB 161 is not just about legalization, it is also designed to significantly tighten restrictions on online sweepstakes gaming. The bill would effectively outlaw most paid online sweepstakes unless run by a licensed iGaming operator.

It defines the trigger broadly. Any sweepstakes that allow Virginia participants to exchange something of value for a chance at cash or a cash equivalent would be deemed illegal online gaming if conducted without a licence.

Penalties would escalate sharply, up to $100,000 for a first offence and $250,000 for subsequent violations, with each day treated as a separate offence. Enforcement authority would rest with the Virginia Lottery Board, the Attorney General’s Office, and state police, and the proposal also establishes felony penalties for unlicensed internet gaming operations and for tampering with online gaming software or equipment.

This sweepstakes language is a window into where US iGaming debates are heading. Even when legislators are not ready to legalize, they are increasingly forced to answer a practical question, whether the state will tolerate casino like online products operating outside a licensing and tax framework.

Virginia’s implementation timeline if HB 161 passes

If approved, the Lottery Board would be required to finalise implementing regulations by 30 September 2026. Operators could begin submitting notices of intent starting 1 July 2026.

The runway is important. Even in states supportive of expansion, iGaming is operationally complex, and regulators often prefer staged rollouts rather than a fast launch that invites technical failures or compliance gaps.

Maine is set to become the eighth US state to legalise iGaming

While Virginia is still at the proposal stage, Maine is much closer to the finish line. Maine will become the eighth state in the US to legalise iGaming after Gov. Janet Mills said she would sign a bill granting a monopoly on online casino to state tribes.

The bill, LD 1164, was approved by both the State House and Senate in June 2025, leaving the governor’s decision to approve or veto as the final step referenced in the reporting. The significance is not just that Maine joins the iGaming map, it is that it does so at a moment of widespread industry pessimism about further legalisation in the US.

In fact, the news was framed as the most significant progress on iGaming since Rhode Island approved the extension of Bally’s land based monopoly to online casino in June 2023.

Maine’s model is tribal exclusivity

LD 1164 would give full exclusivity for iCasino in Maine to the four federally recognised Wabanaki Nations, the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, the Mi’kmaq Nation, the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Nation.

Maine would become the second state in New England with this kind of arrangement, since Connecticut’s online casino law also gives tribes exclusivity over the vertical. The bill also leaves out the state’s two land based casinos, Hollywood Casino Hotel and Raceway Bangor and Oxford Casino Hotel.

Each tribe would pay $50,000 for their licences and could partner with a single platform provider. That pairing rule suggests a market that could be concentrated among a small number of digital partners, at least initially.

Which operators could benefit in Maine

Truist Securities analysts called the development a positive sign for DraftKings and Caesars, noting that both already have online sports betting partnerships with the tribes and that these relationships now appear likely to extend to iGaming. As Truist put it, they assume other operators could be shut out for now, while leaving open the question of whether more digital operators could gain access in the future.

From a competitive standpoint, this is what makes Maine especially interesting. The state is not simply asking how to legalize online casino, it is choosing who can participate and how many brands consumers will realistically see.

Political resistance remains a defining feature in Maine

Even with the governor signaling she will sign, Maine’s bill still faces organized opposition. The National Association Against iGaming reportedly plans to launch a People’s Vote campaign to block the legislation from becoming law.

A People’s Vote is a constitutional provision in Maine that allows approved bills to be blocked by petition and a subsequent referendum supported by a majority of voters. The group also pointed to a poll it commissioned suggesting a majority of voters statewide opposed legalising online casino.

They told the Portland Press Herald that the timing of the governor’s decision should not be ignored, and framed it as potentially a political calculation rather than policy driven by evidence or public interest. Regardless of where one lands on the merits, the episode is a reminder that iGaming expansion can be decided not only in statehouses, but also at the ballot box.

What these two states reveal about the next phase of US iGaming

Virginia and Maine are moving in parallel, but their approaches highlight the main design choices lawmakers keep returning to. Who gets licenses, what products are permitted, how the state taxes and allocates revenue, and how to respond to unregulated alternatives.

Market access is becoming the central policy lever

In Virginia, the bill would limit iGaming to existing land based casino operators and allow multiple platforms per operator, creating room for several branded skins under a controlled umbrella. In Maine, the bill concentrates market power by granting exclusivity to tribes, and limiting each tribe to a single platform partner.

Both are political solutions as much as economic ones. Policymakers are not just regulating gambling, they are allocating opportunity among stakeholders with very different lobbying power and public narratives.

States are increasingly pairing legalisation with enforcement

HB 161’s sweepstakes provisions show a more assertive posture, legalize and license certain online casino products, then clamp down on adjacent products that look similar but operate outside the regulatory perimeter. That matters for consumer protection arguments, but it also signals that legalization bills may increasingly come with strong language aimed at shutting down gray market competition.

Revenue allocation is part of the legitimacy argument

Virginia’s proposed 15% tax rate, the 5% share directed to the Problem Gambling Treatment and Support Fund, and the temporary hold harmless funding through 2030 are examples of how states try to build legitimacy. The mechanics are not just about balancing budgets, they are about answering predictable critiques from opponents and from incumbent gambling businesses.

Maine’s licensing fee of $50,000 for each tribe is a very different economic model, reflecting its exclusivity structure and the role of tribal governments as the authorized operators.

Key takeaways for operators, regulators, and players

• Virginia’s HB 161 is a serious, fully drafted attempt to legalize online casinos and poker, but it is widely seen as facing a challenging path,
• Maine is positioned to become the eighth legal iGaming state, but the People’s Vote process could still put the issue in front of voters,
• Across both states, the fight is shifting from whether iGaming exists to who controls it, how it is taxed, and how aggressively states police unlicensed alternatives.

Where US iGaming legalization efforts go from here

The next chapter will likely be shaped as much by political packaging as by revenue projections. Virginia’s approach tries to make iGaming feel like an extension of sports betting regulation, with clear guardrails and meaningful penalties for unlicensed activity. Maine’s approach tries to solve legitimacy and market structure through tribal exclusivity, even if that invites a referendum fight.

For an industry that has been bracing for a slow year on legalization, these two stories matter because they show momentum can return quickly, but it returns in state specific forms. In the near term, the question is not whether online casino continues to expand in the US, it is what kind of regulatory bargains states will demand in exchange for the privilege to operate.