Washington DC Is Holding Its First Public Hearing on Legalizing Online Casinos

Washington, D.C. held its first public hearing on real-money online casino gaming this week, drawing more than four hours of testimony from operators, regulators, and responsible gambling advocates — and exposing a sharp divide that will define the bill’s path forward. The hearing, convened by the D.C. Council’s Committee on Human Services on May 4, centered on Council Bill 26-0656, the Internet Gaming and Consumer Protection Act of 2026, introduced last month by Councilmember Wendell Felder (D-Ward 7).

What the Bill Actually Proposes

The legislation would authorize online casino games — including blackjack, poker, roulette, and slot-style products — for adults physically located within non-federal lands in the District. The Office of Lottery and Gaming, which already oversees D.C.’s legal sportsbooks, would serve as the primary regulator under the bill.

The financial structure is substantial. Operators would pay a $2 million fee for a five-year license, with a $500,000 renewal. On the revenue side, the bill levies a 25% tax on adjusted gross gaming revenue, plus a 2% regulatory assessment and a 2% community impact contribution, bringing the effective rate to 29%. Revenue would fund behavioral health services, community programs, and regulatory oversight. The minimum age for iCasino play would be set at 21, stricter than the current 18-year threshold for sports betting in the District.

The bill takes an open licensing approach, placing no cap on the number of operator licenses. Each licensee would be limited to two approved gaming brands, though regulators could authorize additional brands if warranted. D.C.’s existing mobile sportsbook operators — BetMGM, Caesars, DraftKings, FanDuel, Fanatics, and theScore Bet — would likely be positioned to seek licensure under the expanded framework. If passed, a market launch could happen within 180 days of final regulatory certification, and multiple operators testified they could go live within six months of approval.

A Room Divided

Testimony split cleanly between the industry and advocates opposed to expansion. Representatives from FanDuel, DraftKings, BetMGM, and other major operators made the case that regulation is the only real path to consumer protection. Their central argument: D.C. residents are estimated to spend roughly $700 million annually on unlicensed, offshore casino platforms that offer none of the responsible gambling protections a licensed market would require.

On the other side, problem gambling organizations pushed back hard. Les Bernal, national director of Stop Predatory Gambling, testified that legalization would simply expand operator reach into a new pool of potential customers rather than redirect existing behavior. The National Association Against iGaming — whose members include Churchill Downs and The Cordish Companies, which operates Live! Casino and Hotel Maryland — testified that online casinos cannibalize brick-and-mortar revenue and carry serious addiction risks.

Office of Lottery and Gaming officials backed most of the bill’s regulatory provisions but declined to offer a formal endorsement or opposition to legal iGaming itself. No vote was taken at the conclusion of the hearing. The full 13-member D.C. Council would still need to pass the bill, and it would then require a signature from Mayor Muriel Bowser and survive a 60-day congressional review period before becoming law.

The Sweepstakes Casino Complication

One of the bill’s more aggressive provisions takes direct aim at sweepstakes casinos operating in the city. The legislation would explicitly ban the dual-currency model that sweepstakes platforms use — where players purchase virtual coins for gameplay and receive a separate currency redeemable for cash — and impose civil penalties of up to $100,000 per violation. The attorney general would be empowered to issue cease-and-desist letters and seek injunctions against non-compliant operators.

Several sweepstakes casino representatives testified against the bill during Monday’s hearing, making clear that the industry sees D.C. iGaming legalization as an existential threat to their local operations. For operators running under the sweepstakes model, the bill would force a choice between exiting the D.C. market or converting to a fully licensed iGaming structure — a transition far too costly for most.

Where D.C. Would Land on the Map

Washington would join eight states that currently allow real-money iCasino gaming. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Michigan are the only existing markets that permit more than five iCasino operators, and D.C.’s open licensing model would theoretically put it in that company from day one. For context, states like New Jersey and Pennsylvania generate hundreds of millions in annual iGaming tax revenue — figures that Felder cited in framing the bill as a fiscal correction as much as a consumer protection measure.

The timeline for the legislation remains unclear. Felder has framed the measure as both a revenue opportunity and a regulatory necessity, arguing that the current landscape — where offshore platforms and sweepstakes sites operate freely without oversight — is the worst of all possible worlds for D.C. consumers. Whether that argument can move the full council remains to be seen, but Monday’s hearing established that the debate has officially begun.