Maine iGaming legalization and what it means for US online casino

Maine iGaming legalization is set to make the Pine Tree State the eighth US state to legalise online casino, a notable breakthrough at a time when much of the American industry has been bracing for stalled momentum and louder political resistance. Gov. Janet Mills has said she will sign LD 1164, a bill that gives Maine’s tribes a monopoly on online casino, pushing the state into a small but growing club of regulated iCasino markets.

The bill, LD 1164, cleared both the State House and Senate in June 2025, with the final step resting on the governor’s decision to approve or veto. With Mills indicating she will sign, the conversation now shifts from whether iGaming can pass, to how Maine’s model will shape competition, partnerships, and the next wave of legislative battles.

Why Maine matters right now

In pure map terms, Maine is a smaller state, but its policy significance is outsized. According to the reporting, this is the most significant progress on iGaming in America since Rhode Island approved the extension of Bally’s land-based monopoly to online casino in June 2023. That timeline is important because it frames Maine as the first clear legislative breakthrough after a period of widespread pessimism.

Industry sentiment has been weighed down by a determined pushback against online gaming, and Maine’s move lands as a surprise. Truist Securities analysts captured that mood shift bluntly, calling it modest but welcome, especially given the prevailing consensus that there would be no iGaming legalisations this year.

LD 1164 and the tribal exclusivity model

The core feature of LD 1164 is full exclusivity for iCasino to Maine’s four federally recognised Wabanaki Nations, the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, the Mi’kmaq Nation, the Passamaquoddy Tribe, and the Penobscot Nation. That detail sets the commercial structure from day one and shapes everything that follows, from market access to lobbying pressure.

Maine will become the second state in New England with this kind of arrangement. Connecticut’s online casino law also gives tribes exclusivity over the vertical, making the region a clear reference point for how lawmakers are balancing sovereignty, economic participation, and the politics of gambling expansion.

At the operator level, the bill is also specific about how the ecosystem can be built. Each tribe must pay $50,000 for its licence, and each will be permitted to partner with a single platform provider. Structurally, that encourages a limited number of technology and operator relationships, and it may compress competition into a small set of exclusive pipelines.

Who is in and who is out

One of the most consequential aspects of the legislation is who is excluded. Maine’s two land-based casinos, Hollywood Casino Hotel & Raceway Bangor and Oxford Casino Hotel, have been left out of the deal. In many US states, brick-and-mortar casinos are positioned as the political and commercial bridge to online casino, but Maine is choosing a different route.

That difference matters because it changes the likely coalition dynamics going forward. A tribal exclusivity model can reduce the number of commercial stakeholders inside the tent, but it can also intensify opposition from stakeholders who feel structurally sidelined.

DraftKings and Caesars look positioned for early advantage

Truist Securities highlighted the news as a positive sign for DraftKings and Caesars, based on their existing online sports betting partnerships with the tribes, partnerships that now appear likely to extend to iGaming. In other words, the bill does not just legalise iCasino, it potentially locks in a narrow set of winners at launch if existing relationships carry over.

Truist analysts Barry Jonas, Patrick Keough and Jeremy Jacoby wrote that the move comes as a surprise, and though modest, it is welcome for Buy-rated DKNG and CZR. They also noted that both look set to have exclusive rights to offer iGaming on top of their existing OSB partnerships, while adding that it is unclear if more digital operators could gain access in the future. For now, their assumption is that others could be shut out.

For readers tracking the competitive chessboard, this is the key takeaway. Market access may be determined less by who has the loudest national brand, and more by who already has the right local partnerships when a tribal exclusivity framework becomes law.

The broader US context and why this breaks the gloomy spell

The story is not just that Maine is joining the list of legal iCasino states, it is that it is doing so when many expected no movement at all. Truist explicitly pointed to “consensus thinking” that there would be no iGaming legalisations this year, and raised the obvious question, is Maine a one-off, or a sign of more to come.

That question is where Maine becomes a bellwether. If the state successfully implements a controlled, tribal-led market, it can give lawmakers elsewhere a template that is politically defensible, especially in jurisdictions where exclusivity arrangements are already familiar through land-based compacts or sports betting structures.

Opposition is already organising and the People’s Vote is the key threat

The bill is not the end of the fight. The National Association Against iGaming has vowed to launch a People’s Vote campaign to block the legislation from becoming law. That mechanism is distinctive to Maine and it changes the risk profile even after legislative passage and gubernatorial approval.

A People’s Vote is a constitutional provision in Maine that allows approved bills to be blocked by a petition and subsequent referendum that achieves the support of the majority of voters. In practical terms, that means the policy battle can move from the State House to a statewide persuasion contest, where messaging, fear, and voter turnout can matter as much as regulatory design.

The group told the Portland Press Herald that the timing of the decision cannot be ignored, and that while only the governor can explain her change of heart, it is difficult to view it as anything other than a political calculation rather than a policy driven by evidence or public interest. The advocacy group also pointed to a poll it commissioned suggesting a majority of voters statewide opposed legalising online casino.

In the near term, the industry should treat this as a reminder that legalisation is increasingly a two-stage process in some states, first winning the legislative pathway, then surviving a public legitimacy test if opponents can force a referendum.

What this model says about the future shape of US iGaming

Maine’s approach adds to a growing US pattern where iGaming expansion is not automatically synonymous with open competition. Rhode Island extended a land-based monopoly to online casino in June 2023, Connecticut uses tribal exclusivity, and now Maine is following a similar exclusivity logic through the Wabanaki Nations.

For the market, this has several implications.

• Exclusivity is becoming a legislative tool that can make legalisation more politically achievable, even if it limits operator access,
• existing sports betting relationships may become the fastest on-ramp to iCasino participation, especially when each tribe can partner with only a single platform provider,
• the fiercest battleground may be outside the legislature, with petition and referendum dynamics giving organised opposition a powerful second chance.

Florida offers a reminder of how quickly product strategy can evolve

While Maine is focused on iCasino, the article also points to an instructive national side note. The Seminole Tribe in Florida has a monopoly over sports betting and has recently experimented with offering slots-like products through the use of NASCAR historical data. That example matters because it shows how product boundaries can be tested in monopoly or quasi-monopoly environments, particularly where stakeholders have an incentive to broaden digital engagement.

Even without extrapolating beyond what has been reported, the underlying lesson is clear. When one entity controls access, innovation often concentrates within that entity’s ecosystem, and regulators can find themselves evaluating not only classic casino products but also adjacent experiences that resemble casino mechanics.

What to watch next in Maine

With Mills saying she will sign LD 1164, attention turns to three immediate signals that will define the early narrative of Maine’s online casino rollout.

• whether the National Association Against iGaming can successfully mobilise the petition effort required to trigger a People’s Vote,
• which platform providers the Wabanaki Nations select, given the one-provider-per-tribe limitation,
• how firmly exclusivity holds if pressure builds from other digital operators or from Maine’s land-based casinos that have been left out.

The takeaway for operators, tribes, and policymakers

Maine is poised to become the eighth US state to legalise iGaming, but the deeper story is about governance and market design. LD 1164 is not building a wide-open licensing regime, it is building a controlled framework that places iCasino rights with the Wabanaki Nations and limits partnerships to a single platform provider per tribe.

For DraftKings and Caesars, Truist’s interpretation suggests the advantage could be immediate, given existing online sports betting partnerships with the tribes. For competitors, the message is more sobering, access may be structurally limited unless future policy changes open the door.

For the broader industry, the real test will be political durability. A referendum threat via the People’s Vote mechanism means Maine’s iGaming story could still be decided at the ballot box, not just in the statehouse. If the bill survives that pressure, Maine will not only expand the regulated online casino footprint, it will offer a live case study in how tribal exclusivity models can advance iGaming in an era of growing organised opposition.