It seems highly unlikely that the online gambling bill, SB 312, will gain any traction in the state. Filed 4 September, the bill has not been assigned to a committee, and it does not have any co-sponsors. Beyond that, DeWine remains anti-gambling, and his current term runs until 11 January 2027.

Three Ohio Republicans in July said they support legal online gambling, but bill sponsor Senator Niraj Antani wasn’t among them. Representatives Jay Edwards, Jeff LaRe and Cindy Abrams advocated for online casino and a digital lottery, with the caveat that the state should “proceed with caution.”

Their comments were included in a comprehensive report from a legislative study committee on the subject. The report weighed the pros and cons of a gambling expansion, but did not offer a definitive recommendation. Antani was not on the study committee. Antani represents District 6, which includes Dayton, and partially borders Pennsylvania. There are no brick-and-mortar casinos in the district.

Why now?

The timing of the bill seems odd — Antani announced in November 2023 that he will not seek reelection. That means the bill must be approved by the end of the year, as its sponsor won’t return in 2025. In addition, the Dayton Daily News in May wrote that Antani hadn’t been showing up to vote.

It’s also an election year. For most politicians that means voting only on necessary issues, and usually not on controversial ones.

At its core, Antani’s online gambling bill expands on the current retail casino regulations to include online casino. Platforms would follow most of the same guidelines as the four existing physical casinos, though fees and taxes would be different. Licencees would also be required to make a significant annual payment to problem and responsible gambling fund.

The bill calls for a 15% tax on gross receipts. That number is 5% less than the 20% tax that digital wagering operators pay. When Ohio lawmakers in late 2021 legalised wagering, they did so with a 10% tax rate. But by July 2023, DeWine pushed through a doubling of the tax rate.

How many platforms would be allowed?

It’s unclear from the proposal how many online casino platforms would be allowed in the state. The text of the bill reads that casinos can contract out to “one or more” management services providers. There are currently four brick-and-mortar casinos in Ohio — the Hard Rock Cincinnati, Hollywood Casino Columbus, Hollywood Casino Toledo and JACK Cleveland. Digital platforms would be required to be tethered to existing casinos.

Here’s a look at the fee structure:

• The figures outlined in the bill are “minimums,” and the Ohio Casino Control Commission could increase many of them.

• Permit holders would be required to pay $650,000 in fees as part of the application process. The $100,000 minimum application fee would be non-refundable. Approved applicants would also have to pay a minimum $300,000 permit fee and $250,000 to the problem and responsible gambling fund.
• Permit renewals would cost a minimum of $250,000 per year. A minimum $250,000 annual contribution to the problem and responsible gambling fund would be required.
• “Internet casino gaming associates,” which appear to be management service providers, would be required to the pay the same application fees, minus the PG/RG fund payment.
• Internet casino gaming associates would also be subject to a renewal fee of at least $250,000 annually.

Multi-state poker considered

In his bill, Antani requires an annual problem and responsible gaming report and that operators provide a plan for how and where they will display gambling treatment contact information. The bill also mandates that operators clearly offer ways for patrons to limit spending and suspend accounts. It goes on to read that operators must “attempt” to stop marketing to any consumer who suspends an account for 72 hours or more.

Antani also appears to be trying to position Ohio to be prepared should operators want to participate in multi-state poker pools.

The bill text reads that platforms could “accept internet casino gaming wagers from individuals who are not physically located in this state if the commission determines that doing so would not be inconsistent with federal law or the laws of the jurisdictions in which the individuals are located. The commission may enter into reciprocal agreements with other jurisdictions to allow permit holders to accept internet casino gaming wagers from individuals located in those jurisdictions, to the extent consistent with federal law and the laws of this state.”

Platforms in Delaware, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey and West Virginia offer such pools.