Virginia lawmakers will not consider real money online casino gaming legislation this year after the bill’s sponsor Monday withdrew the proposal for 2025. The Senate subcommittee on gaming agreed unanimously to Sen. Mamie Locke’s motion to further study the bill with the intention it would be reconsidered in 2026.
Though the motion keeps iGaming hopes alive for next year, the pulled bill in 2025 underscores the difficulties passing iGaming legislation in Virginia and statehouses across the country.
Bill details
The bill would have allowed regulated real money slots, table games and poker via mobile devices statewide.
The proposed tax rate was 15% of gross gaming revenue, which would be one of the lowest rates of any competitive iGaming state; online table games and slots have higher rates of return for operators, which has led lawmakers to enact higher rates for these games compared to online sportsbooks.
Online casino licenses would be available for the state’s five brick-and-mortar casinos. Each could partner with up to three brands, meaning there could potentially be up to 15 iGaming sites if the bill were to pass.
Caesars, Hard Rock, Rush Street Gaming, and Boyd operate four of the casinos and would undoubtedly use one of their three respective licenses on their in-house brands or partners. Other national market share leaders including DraftKings, FanDuel, and most other iGaming platforms would also likely seek market access.
The (now tabled) Virginia online casino gaming bill would have been good news for Caesars, Boyd, Rush Street and Hard Rock, with each essentially guaranteed to get an iGaming platform launch via their operations of brick-and-mortar casinos in the state; attention shifts to 2026
— Ryan Butler (@ButlerBets) January 21, 2025
MGM, which operates MGM National Harbor casino in Maryland feet from the Virginia border, would also be a top contender to seek a license.
These partnerships are common in states with online sports betting market access deals. Retail operators agree to give ostensible competitors market access in exchange for a fee and/or a portion of the partner company’s revenue.
The significantly larger revenue potential from iGaming compared to mobile sports betting would make these partnerships far more lucrative for Virginia’s brick-and-mortar casino operators – and costly for their partners.
Opposition
The iGaming legalization proposal faced strong opposition from other gaming stakeholders.
The Cordish Companies, which has operating rights for the state’s fifth casino, has publicly opposed online casino gaming, arguing it hurts brick-and-mortar casino revenues. It’s unclear if Cordish would still launch an iGaming platform if given the right to, but its resistance to digital gaming creates a strong opposition force.
Independent financial analyses conducted by the state Department of Planning and Budget also found iGaming legalization would hurt online lottery sales and the accompanying tax revenue. Digital lottery ticket sales constitute more than half of all Virginia lottery sales and the state government would potentially have to raise taxes elsewhere to maintain funding levels.
With a potential financial hit to the lottery, which funds hundreds of millions of dollars in annual education programs, online casino gaming likely needs higher tax rates to be politically feasible. The study also found that iGaming could hurt tax revenue from the brick-and-mortar casinos.
Complicating iGaming efforts further is consideration of a sixth in-person casino, in Fairfax County in the Washington, D.C. suburbs. The proposed casino in one of the state's (and the nation’s) wealthiest counties could generate hundreds of new jobs and millions in additional taxes, but it has been strongly opposed by community leaders who argue the casino would drastically change the makeup of the community.
Several dozen casino opponents attended a hearing on the authorization bill on Monday. MGM, looking to protect its MGM National Harbor property, has also worked to defeat the bill.
If the Fairfax casino authorization passes the General Assembly and earns local approvals, it also alters the calculus of online casinos. Under Locke’s proposal, there would be six casinos, meaning the potential for up to 18 online casino brands.
Nationwide legalization difficulties
These issues in Virginia are in addition to political roadblocks that have thwarted iGaming legalization in most other states.
Organized labor groups in Maryland and other iGaming legalization candidates have argued iGaming will hurt in-person casino visitations and threaten jobs for the casinos and other neighboring businesses. These concerns are more acute in states such as Virginia where Democrats control the legislature.
Politicians from both parties have also voiced concerns about the potential of gambling addiction and other societal problems from online casinos. Unlike sportsbooks, which are constrained to live sporting events, online slots and table games are available 24 hours a day.
Proponents have argued that unregulated iGaming platforms are already available without offering any player protections or responsible gambling tools. Regulating these games can also generate new taxes from games players are already consuming.
Only four states have competitive online casino gaming markets: New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan and West Virginia. Delaware as well as Rhode Island and Connecticut allow two or fewer iGaming platforms.
Maryland along with Indiana, Massachusetts, and Wyoming are also considering legal iGaming in 2025. Like Virginia, they all face difficult political journeys getting there.
