Online casino gambling is getting a fresh look from states around the nation, and Massachusetts is one of them after iGaming bills were filed in both the House and Senate earlier this week.
Virtual Gaming
Senator Paul Feeney and Representative Daniel Cahill have filed SD 2240 and HD 4084 in their respective chambers, each aiming to bring online casino gambling to the Bay State. Both bills would delegate governance, regulation and licensing over the new iGaming industry to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC).
The state’s three commercial casinos, Encore Boston Harbor, MGM Springfield and Plainridge Park Casino would all be allowed two skins, or third-party providers, while four iGaming licenses would be untethered, and thus no profits would be shared with the casinos.
Virtual poker, blackjack, craps, roulette, cards, slots and other casino games would be allowed, with each licensee paying $5 million for an initial five-year license followed by a $5 million renewal fee for five-year periods. A 20% tax on online gaming revenues would be implemented, which is similar to the 20% tax rate currently assessed on mobile sports betting revenues in Massachusetts.
Moreover, if it so chooses, the MGC would also be permitted to enter into an “internet gaming reciprocal agreement” with other states or foreign jurisdictions, such as the Multi-State Internet Gaming Association, a shared player pool consisting of five states.
Hurdles to Mount
Only seven states have launched iGaming compared to 39 that have adopted legalized sports betting. It is no secret that iGaming revenues far exceed those of mobile sports betting, yet it has not been nearly embraced by state legislators around the nation.
One reason that anti-gambling advocates argue is that allowing a 24-hour online casino on mobile devices and PCs would be far more addicting than sports betting. Another concern emanates from land-based casino operators who fear their business will be cannibalized by the virtual realm and the thousands of jobs that union workers believe could be imperiled by iGaming.
Lastly, educating legislators about online gambling and its benefits can come with some initial disconnect. Craig Billings, the CEO of Wynn Resorts, described some of those awkward moments when speaking to state legislators.
“We go to talk about iGaming, and they think we are talking about video games,” Billings said last year. “I start with [using the phrase] ‘internet casino.’ You have to call this what it is; otherwise, you have lawmakers that don’t know what you’re talking about. And then you have to lead with consumer protections.”
Revenue Rush
Due to the significant revenue iGaming brings, lawmakers looking for solutions to solve budget deficits are seemingly more receptive than ever to discussing iGaming legislation after witnessing the impressive returns of mobile sports betting.
West Virginia Delegate Shawn Fluharty was the driving force in getting iGaming passed in the Mountain State in 2018 and commented last year about the politics of getting support for virtual gaming legislation.
“There was a rush to pass sports betting,” Fluharty said. “And I feel like lawmakers thought there would be a domino effect, and there was in some states. But what do lawmakers want? To get reelected, so if they feel like the people they represent want it, they will do it.”
