Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
The Bioremediation Network
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
IGaming Bill Prohibiting Sweepstakes Filed In Ohio This Month
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
<br>A second bill submitted in the Ohio House of Representatives would legalize online casino gaming, barring sweepstakes-style games. This would be a significant change in the state's consideration of regulating digital games. House Bill 298 (HB 298), led by Rep. Brian Stewart, a regulated iGaming model that benefits existing in-state gaming companies and limits market entry to new industry entrants.<br><br><br>- Ohioβs HB 298 would legalize iGaming, exclude sweepstakes casinos, and limit license access strictly<br>- Bill sets 28% tax rate, $50 million license fee, and March 2026 rollout deadline<br>- Only existing casinos can operate; sweepstakes-style games would be explicitly banned under new law<br><br><br>HB 298 restricts iGaming licenses to Ohio's current land casinos and racinos. These licensees would receive a $50 million fee for a five-year license, and a $10 million fee for a [https://www.pompombaby.co.uk/blog/journal-blog-is-here renewal].<br><br><br>The bill taxes gross [https://animeautochess.com/index.php/User:CeceliaBaugh351 iGaming revenue] at a 28% tax rate, with 99% of the resulting [https://www.pompombaby.co.uk/blog/journal-blog-is-here tax revenue] going into the state's general fund and 1% earmarked for preventing and treating problem [https://corona-untersuchungsausschuss.org/index.php?title=Benutzer:KatiaConger7 gambling].<br><br><br>Likewise, the Ohio Casino Control Commission would oversee regulation, and iGaming would be accessible only to those older than 21.<br><br><br>One of the most significant provisions of HB 298 is the inclusion of a firm deadline for implementing online gaming. If passed, the bill would [https://www.pompombaby.co.uk/blog/journal-blog-is-here mandate] the [http://auropedia.com/index.php/User:ZandraBrehm86 rollout] of iGaming by March 31, 2026. This is one of the few times a state-level iGaming bill has included a predetermined start date.<br><br><br>Arguably, the most critical part of the proposal is its prohibition on sweepstakes casino gaming websites. Ohio joins the likes of New Jersey, Louisiana, and Maryland in introducing legislation banning social casinos.<br><br><br>Sweepstakes casinos [https://www.pompombaby.co.uk/blog/journal-blog-is-here unwelcome] in new bill<br><br><br>HB 298 defines an "online sweepstakes game" as an online or mobile-enabled game that uses virtual currencies to win real cash or cash-equivalent prizes. While not [https://hastursnotebook.org/index.php/User:CaridadMcNeill overtly outlawed] under state law, this is tantamount to gambling. With this provision, the bill aims to eliminate loopholes that have [https://bioremediate.net/index.php/User:ChaseDraper9878 allowed unlicensed] [https://www.ebersbach.org/index.php?title=User:ThelmaScurry9 operators] to thrive with minimal regulation.<br><br><br>The bill follows on the heels of a previous iGaming bill - Senate Bill 197 (SB 197) - presented earlier in May by Sen. Nathan Manning. Although both bills propose legalizing Ohio online casinos, they do so quite differently in terms of structure, specifically concerning taxes and [https://www.pompombaby.co.uk/blog/journal-blog-is-here market access].<br> <br><br>SB 197 would create a more [https://www.pompombaby.co.uk/blog/journal-blog-is-here severe taxing] regime, [https://www.pompombaby.co.uk/blog/journal-blog-is-here including] a 36% rate for [http://propwiki.org/index.php?title=User:Chanel2724 Ohio-based operators] and 40% for operators without an in-state presence. Out-of-state operators would also face a significantly higher license fee of $100 million, compared to $50 million for currently operating operators in Ohio.<br><br><br>In addition, the legislation seeks to legalize iLottery offerings and has a measure to reduce the tax rate on sports wagering by casinos on land from 20% to 10%.<br><br><br>During a recent Senate Select [https://www.pompombaby.co.uk/blog/journal-blog-is-here Committee] on Gaming hearing, Sen. Manning argued that the state could net $300 million to $1 billion annually from the legalization of iGaming. A second hearing of SB 197 is scheduled for May 22.<br>
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to The Bioremediation Network may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
The Bioremediation Network:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)