Could Online Casinos Be Legalized in Ohio? 2026 Outlook

Last Updated on August 4, 2026 by author

Ohio already permits retail casino gambling, racetrack gaming and statewide mobile sports betting. However, adults in the Buckeye State still cannot legally open a state-licensed app and play real-money online slots, blackjack, roulette or other casino games.

That could eventually change.

Two major proposals—House Bill 298 and Senate Bill 197—were introduced during the 2025–2026 General Assembly to create a regulated Ohio online casino market. Both remain pending on paper, but neither has received a floor vote or shown meaningful movement since its initial committee activity.

As of August 2026, the most realistic outlook is that Ohio could legalize online casinos in the future, but passage during 2026 appears unlikely. Strong opposition from Governor Mike DeWine, resistance from legislative leadership and growing concern about the effects of mobile gambling have significantly reduced the chances of an immediate launch.

Are Online Casinos Legal in Ohio in 2026?

No. Real-money online casino gaming remains unauthorized in Ohio as of August 2026.

Residents can legally use licensed mobile sportsbooks because regulated sports betting launched in the state on January 1, 2023. They can also visit Ohio’s four commercial casinos and seven racinos. Those forms of gambling fall under state regulatory systems involving the Ohio Casino Control Commission and the Ohio Lottery Commission.

Online casino games are different from sports betting. A sportsbook allows customers to wager on sporting events, while an online casino typically offers digital slot machines, video poker and table games such as blackjack, baccarat and roulette.

Neither an offshore casino nor a sweepstakes-style platform should be confused with an Ohio-licensed online casino. Ohio does not currently issue licenses for real-money casino apps. The fact that a website accepts players from Ohio does not mean it has been approved or supervised by state regulators.

How Ohio’s Online Casino Debate Developed

Ohio’s iGaming debate did not begin with HB 298 or SB 197.

A Study Commission on the Future of Gaming in Ohio was created through the state budget and examined online casinos, internet lottery products, racinos, retail casinos and other gambling issues. Its 2024 report showed that several lawmakers believed carefully regulated iGaming and iLottery could produce a net benefit for the state.

Republican representatives Jay Edwards, Jeff LaRe and Cindy Abrams wrote that online casino and lottery expansion deserved consideration. Other members also said Ohio should examine the issue cautiously, particularly because residents were already accessing unregulated gambling sites. At the same time, the commission heard concerns about addiction, employment and the possible loss of business at physical casinos and racinos.

That report gave legalization supporters a foundation for introducing formal legislation in 2025. It did not, however, create a consensus.

By May 2025, lawmakers had introduced two separate plans. The House proposal focused mainly on online casino games, while the Senate proposal attempted a much broader overhaul of Ohio’s gambling system.

What Would Ohio House Bill 298 Do?

House Bill 298 was introduced by Republican Representatives Brian Stewart and Marilyn John. It is the narrower of Ohio’s two major iGaming proposals.

HB 298 would authorize and regulate internet casino gambling through the Ohio Casino Control Commission. Adults aged 21 and older who were physically located inside Ohio would potentially be able to access approved online slots, poker and table games.

The bill’s principal provisions include:

The bill would link the online market to Ohio’s four casinos and seven racinos rather than creating a fully open licensing process. Its sponsors presented that structure as a way to protect businesses that had already invested in the state. The proposal would also limit certain online promotional rewards so that benefits could be redeemed at physical properties for meals, entertainment or in-person play.

HB 298’s 28% tax rate is lower than the 33% tax imposed on gross revenue from Ohio’s commercial casinos. Supporters argued that online operators do not have the same hotel, restaurant and entertainment revenue streams as destination properties. Opponents questioned why an online product with lower operating and employment costs should receive a lower rate.

The Ohio Legislative Service Commission’s analysis confirms that HB 298 would impose a 28% tax and establish a state licensing structure. Despite that detailed framework, its latest major legislative action remains its May 2025 referral to the House Finance Committee. It has not passed either chamber.

What Would Ohio Senate Bill 197 Do?

Senate Bill 197, introduced by Republican Senator Nathan Manning, is considerably broader.

In addition to online casino games, SB 197 would authorize certain internet lottery products and formally permit online pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing. It would also consolidate much of Ohio’s gambling oversight under the Ohio Casino Control Commission.

The proposal contemplated transferring regulation of video lottery terminals, horse racing and charitable gaming to the commission at different stages. It also proposed a unified voluntary exclusion program covering multiple forms of gambling.

Under the introduced version:

• Ohio casinos and racinos would face a $50 million initial fee and a $5 million renewal fee.
• Operators using an approved outside management company could face higher fees.
• Internet gambling receipts would generally be taxed at 36%, rising to 40% under certain management structures.
• Online casino participation would be limited to people aged 21 or older who were physically inside Ohio.
• Most tax revenue would enter the state’s General Revenue Fund, with 1% directed toward problem-gambling services.

The Senate proposal originally envisioned an online gambling launch by March 31, 2026. That date became unrealistic when the bill failed to advance. It remains a proposal rather than an enacted timetable.

SB 197 was introduced in May 2025 and referred to the Senate Select Committee on Gaming. It received testimony but did not pass the committee, Senate or House.

Key Differences Between HB 298 and SB 197

Although the bills share the same broad objective, they are not identical.

HB 298 is primarily an online casino bill. It proposes a 28% tax and concentrates on internet versions of conventional casino games.

SB 197 is an industry-wide restructuring measure. It combines online casinos with iLottery, horse-racing wagering and changes to Ohio’s regulatory agencies. It also proposes higher tax rates of 36% or 40%.

That difference matters politically. A narrow bill can be easier for lawmakers to understand and amend, but it may not satisfy lottery or horse-racing stakeholders. A comprehensive bill can resolve several policy questions at once, but it creates more affected parties and more potential opposition.

Neither proposal has emerged as the agreed-upon path forward.

Why Did Ohio’s Online Casino Legislation Stall?

Governor DeWine strongly opposes mobile casino gambling

The most significant obstacle is Governor Mike DeWine.

DeWine said in 2025 that he was “very much against” putting casino gambling on every person’s phone around the clock. He argued that constant access could intensify gambling addiction and create additional suffering for Ohio families.

His position became even more restrictive after concerns surrounding legal sports betting. In November 2025, DeWine told the Associated Press that he regretted signing Ohio’s sports-betting legislation. He cited aggressive gambling advertising, harassment of athletes and betting-related integrity cases as reasons for reconsidering the state’s expansion.

A governor’s opposition does not automatically prevent the General Assembly from passing a bill. Lawmakers could theoretically override a veto with sufficient support. In practical terms, however, passing a controversial expansion becomes much harder when the governor is firmly opposed and legislative leaders do not appear eager to challenge him.

House leadership sees a possible gambling “saturation point”

House Speaker Matt Huffman said Ohio was unlikely to approve online casino and lottery games during the current legislative session. He noted that the state had already experienced substantial gambling expansion and questioned whether Ohio was approaching a saturation point.

Proposed iGaming language was considered during the state budget process but was not included in the final budget. Huffman also noted that HB 298 and SB 197 had not been scheduled for additional hearings.

That is particularly important because legislative leadership controls which proposals receive committee time and floor consideration. A bill can technically remain active while having little practical chance of passage.

Ohio is dealing with increased concern about problem gambling

Ohio’s own data gives legalization opponents a powerful argument.

The Ohio Department of Behavioral Health’s 2025–2026 Problem Gambling Services report refers to the state’s 2022 gambling survey, which estimated that approximately 254,000 Ohioans had a gambling disorder and around 1.8 million were at some level of risk.

Those figures predate the launch of legal sports betting. Calls to Ohio’s problem-gambling helpline increased after sportsbooks began operating, with 10,637 calls recorded in 2023 compared with 6,835 in 2022, according to Ohio for Responsible Gambling data reported at the time.

The political mood hardened further in 2026 when Ohio lawmakers proposed restricting aspects of mobile sports betting, including credit-card use, wager frequency and advertising. That debate does not directly decide the online casino question, but it demonstrates growing concern about expanding high-frequency gambling on smartphones.

Physical casinos and racinos are divided

The casino industry does not have a single position on Ohio iGaming.

Some national operators argue that online casinos complement physical properties by reaching new customers and strengthening loyalty programs. Supporters have pointed to regulated markets such as Michigan and Pennsylvania, where online and retail gambling operate together.

Other businesses fear cannibalization. Their concern is that customers who currently visit a casino, eat at its restaurants and support on-site employment may instead remain at home and play on a phone.

During Ohio hearings, opponents argued that physical properties require major investments and employ thousands of workers, while an online operation can run with far fewer local employees. Supporters disputed the claim that iGaming necessarily damages retail revenue.

This split makes the debate more complicated than a simple contest between “the gambling industry” and anti-gambling groups.

Ohio may face a constitutional question

Ohio’s Constitution authorizes casino gaming at four named casino locations. That language has prompted questions about whether lawmakers can legalize casino-style games played throughout the state without another constitutional amendment.

Supporters of SB 197 argue that the General Assembly has previously authorized other gambling forms—including sports betting, video lottery terminals and charitable games—without a statewide constitutional vote. They believe lawmakers have the authority to regulate iGaming through legislation.

However, Ohio courts have not issued a definitive ruling on the exact online casino question. Even if a bill passed, litigation could follow. Legislators might eventually prefer a constitutional amendment or carefully drafted statutory language to reduce that uncertainty.

The Main Arguments for Legalizing Online Casinos

Regulation could replace part of the illegal market

Supporters say Ohio residents are already accessing offshore casino websites that operate without state approval.

A regulated market could require age verification, geolocation, identity checks, independent game testing and procedures for resolving customer complaints. Licensed platforms could also be required to participate in voluntary self-exclusion programs and display responsible-gambling tools.

The precise size of Ohio’s unregulated market is disputed. Industry witnesses have offered multibillion-dollar estimates, but those figures should be viewed as advocacy claims rather than independently confirmed state totals.

The state could collect substantial tax revenue

HB 298’s sponsors estimated that online casinos could generate between $400 million and $800 million in annual state revenue. An industry representative told lawmakers that annual tax revenue could exceed $600 million. Senator Manning projected at least $500 million under his proposal.

These are projections, not guaranteed results. Actual revenue would depend on the number of operators, license participation, tax deductions, promotional rules, consumer demand and whether customers moved from unregulated sites to licensed ones.

Ohio’s unusually high proposed license fees could also discourage some eligible businesses from entering the market. A smaller number of operators could reduce fee revenue, competition and consumer choice.

Neighboring states already offer legal iGaming

Michigan, Pennsylvania and West Virginia permit regulated online casino gaming. Ohio residents cannot legally use those states’ casino apps from inside Ohio because licensed platforms use geolocation to verify a customer’s physical location.

Supporters argue that Ohio is therefore surrounded by examples it can study. Lawmakers can compare tax rates, consumer protections, problem-gambling policies and the relationship between online and physical casino revenue before designing their own market.

As of 2026, full online casino legalization remains much less common than sports-betting legalization in the United States. Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia are among the established regulated iGaming jurisdictions.

The Main Arguments Against Legalization

Online casinos provide uninterrupted access

A physical casino requires travel. An online casino can be available continuously from a phone, tablet or computer.

Critics argue that this convenience makes it easier to gamble impulsively, chase losses and play in isolation. Digital slots and table games can also operate much faster than many sports wagers because a player does not have to wait for an event to finish.

This difference explains why some lawmakers who accepted mobile sports betting are less comfortable with full casino games.

Legalization may shift revenue rather than create it

A headline tax estimate does not necessarily represent entirely new economic activity.

Some online casino spending could come from money that would otherwise have been spent at Ohio casinos, racinos, lottery retailers, restaurants or other businesses. If that happens, the state might gain iGaming taxes while losing some revenue, employment or investment elsewhere.

The scale of this substitution remains one of the most contested parts of the debate. Both sides have presented data, but their conclusions differ sharply.

The proposed market could be expensive and concentrated

A $50 million initial fee is substantially higher than the entry costs found in several established iGaming states. HB 298 would then require a $10 million renewal fee, while SB 197 proposes a $5 million renewal fee for qualifying in-state operators.

Those charges might generate immediate revenue, but they could also discourage participation. Fewer platforms may mean less price competition, fewer game choices and greater concentration among the largest gambling companies.

One percent for problem gambling may be challenged

Both proposals direct roughly 1% of internet gambling tax proceeds toward Ohio’s Problem Gambling Fund.

Supporters describe that as a major new source of treatment and prevention funding. Critics may argue that the percentage is too small given the accessibility and speed of online casino products.

A future compromise could increase the allocation, guarantee minimum annual funding or require operators to finance additional treatment, research and public education programs.

Could Ohio Legalize Online Casinos Before the End of 2026?

It is legally and procedurally possible, but politically unlikely.

HB 298 and SB 197 have not been formally enacted or definitively defeated. Lawmakers could revive one of them, combine elements from both, attach language to another bill or attempt action during a late legislative session.

There is currently little public evidence of the leadership support needed for that to happen. The governor opposes expansion, the House speaker has expressed skepticism, the proposals have not received recent hearings, and Ohio’s 2026 gambling debate has shifted toward restricting mobile sports betting rather than adding new products.

Therefore, the best 2026 assessment is:

Likelihood of legalization in 2026: Low, but not zero.

Likelihood of an immediate 2026 launch: Extremely low.

Even if legislation passed late in the year, regulators would need time to write rules, review license applications, test technology, approve games and establish geolocation, cybersecurity and responsible-gambling standards. The March 2026 launch dates written into the original proposals have already passed.

Is 2027 or Later More Realistic?

Yes. A renewed effort in 2027 or a later legislative session appears more plausible than passage in 2026.

Governor DeWine’s term ends in January 2027. A future governor and a newly organized General Assembly could reassess the issue. That does not guarantee legalization, but it would alter the political environment.

A future bill would probably need to address several unresolved questions:

1. Whether iGaming can be authorized by statute or should go before voters.
2. How much operators should pay in initial and renewal fees.
3. Whether the tax rate should be 28%, 36%, 40% or another figure.
4. How revenue should be divided among the General Revenue Fund, education, local governments and treatment services.
5. Whether casinos and racinos should receive exclusive licenses.
6. How to protect physical casino employment and horse-racing interests.
7. What deposit limits, advertising rules and self-exclusion requirements should apply.

A narrower compromise may have a better chance than either existing bill. For example, lawmakers could authorize online poker first, restrict the number of casino games, impose stronger marketing controls or require a regulatory study before full implementation.

What Would a Safe Ohio Online Casino Market Need?

Should Ohio eventually legalize iGaming, a credible regulatory framework would need more than licensing fees and tax provisions.

Effective rules would likely include robust age and identity verification, precise geolocation, independent testing of games and payout percentages, clear withdrawal standards, segregated customer funds and strict cybersecurity requirements.

Responsible-gambling controls would be equally important. Players should have access to deposit, wagering and time limits; account histories; cooling-off periods; self-exclusion; and prominent links to treatment services. Regulators would also need authority to intervene when an operator’s marketing, bonus terms or player-retention practices create unnecessary risk.

The goal should not simply be to produce the largest possible market. It should be to create a controlled system that is safer and more transparent than the unregulated alternatives supporters say Ohioans are already using.

Final Verdict

Ohio has moved closer to a serious online casino debate than at any previous point. The state completed a gaming study, introduced two detailed bills and held committee testimony involving operators, regulators, mental-health advocates and physical casino interests.

Nevertheless, the momentum that existed in early 2025 has largely disappeared.

HB 298 and SB 197 remain stalled. Governor DeWine is strongly opposed. House leadership has indicated that further gambling expansion is not a priority, while public concern about sports betting and gambling addiction has increased.

Online casinos could eventually be legalized in Ohio, but a 2026 approval is improbable. The more realistic scenario is a renewed and substantially revised proposal in 2027 or later.

Until a bill is passed, signed and implemented by state regulators, Ohio residents should assume that no real-money online casino is licensed by the state.

FAQs

Are online casino apps legal in Ohio?

No. Ohio does not currently license real-money online slots or casino table-game apps. Licensed online sports betting is legal, but sports wagering and casino gaming are separate categories.

What is Ohio House Bill 298?

HB 298 is a proposal to legalize online casino gaming through Ohio’s existing casinos and racinos. It proposes a 28% tax, a $50 million initial operator fee and regulation by the Ohio Casino Control Commission.

What is Ohio Senate Bill 197?

SB 197 is a broader gambling proposal covering online casinos, internet lottery products, online horse-racing wagers and regulatory consolidation. Its proposed online casino tax is generally 36%, with a possible 40% rate under certain operator arrangements.

Would players need to be inside Ohio?

Yes. Both proposals rely on physical-location requirements. A customer would need to be at least 21 and verified as being inside Ohio when gambling.

Could Ohio voters have to approve online casinos?

Possibly. Supporters argue the legislature can authorize iGaming through a statute, while questions remain because Ohio’s Constitution identifies four physical casino locations. The issue has not been conclusively resolved by an Ohio court.

When could legal Ohio online casinos launch?

There is no official launch date because neither bill has become law. A launch would require legislation, regulatory rulemaking and operator licensing. Any earlier proposal referring to March 2026 is now outdated.

Who would regulate Ohio online casinos?

Both leading bills assign primary oversight to the Ohio Casino Control Commission, which already regulates casino gaming, sports gaming, fantasy contests and other gaming activities in the state.

What is the 2026 outlook?

Legalization remains possible but unlikely during 2026. A new or revised proposal after Ohio’s change in gubernatorial leadership in January 2027 currently appears to be the more realistic path.