The Senate Select Committee on Gaming convened for a third hearing on Senate Bill 197, legislation that would legalize and tax internet casino gaming and expand other digital gambling options in Ohio. Witnesses for and against the bill gave competing forecasts about state revenue, jobs and public harm and proposed several changes — including retail video lottery terminals for bars, bowling centers and grocery stores and higher problem‑gambling funding.

Why it matters: SB197 would change where and how Ohioans can place bets, shift billions in wagering from informal or illegal markets into regulated platforms, and could affect casino employment, local retail traffic and public health programs. Committee members heard technical fiscal estimates and moral, medical and legal objections that the committee must weigh as it prepares further sessions.

Proponents and industry witnesses told the committee legal iGaming would capture unregulated play, produce new state revenue and create a modern regulatory framework. Brent Iden, representing Fanatics Betting and Gaming, said, "thousands of folks in Ohio are playing casino games right now across the across your state without any regulations," and urged the panel to set licensing terms that allow smaller operators to compete. Donovan O'Neil of Americans for Prosperity Ohio urged using gaming revenue to reduce taxes, noting projected license fees and tax rates in the bill and suggesting the new receipts be used for property‑ or income‑tax relief rather than expanding permanent state programs.

An independent industry analysis presented to the committee produced the largest numeric contrasts of the hearing. Brian Wyman, executive vice president of the Innovation Group, said his firm's model estimates a $2.3 billion iGaming market under reasonable assumptions and that the bill's tax rates would yield roughly $840 million to $934 million in new annual tax receipts. But Wyman also projected that online casino offerings would reduce land‑based casino revenue by about 16 percent, a shift he said could cost up to 2,979 jobs and reduce labor income and local economic output. "This could be up to about $250,000,000 in lost Ohio tax revenue," Wyman testified, describing a complex net fiscal picture when new online tax receipts are offset by cannibalized in‑person spending.

Small business and retail witnesses pressed a separate but related point: if iGaming is legalized, brick‑and‑mortar establishments need a regulated retail option to remain competitive with fraternal clubs and illegal machines. David Korr, executive vice president of the Bowling Centers Association of Ohio, said bowling centers are losing patrons to fraternal and veterans' clubs that now operate regulated electronic bingo machines and recommended a limited retail video lottery terminal (VLT) rollout — proposing "no more than 3 machines per location" placed in monitored areas. Bar and grocery industry representatives echoed that request, arguing a retail option would draw foot traffic and help small employers.

Public‑health, treatment and advocacy groups strongly opposed the bill or urged changes to the proposed harm‑mitigation funding. Derek Longmire of the Problem Gambling Network of Ohio testified that the state's own prevalence surveys show substantially increased at‑risk rates (citing the 2022 survey figure of roughly 19.8 percent at risk and about 3 percent meeting criteria for gambling disorder) and urged the committee to retain a 2 percent dedicated funding level for problem‑gambling services rather than the bill's 1 percent allocation. "Any expansion of gambling inevitably exposes new audience to risk," Longmire said. Mental‑health and suicide‑prevention witnesses described clinical and population harms, with Dr. Chris Toole of the Lindner Center of Hope warning about elevated suicide risk among people with gambling disorder and urging the legislature to consider social costs alongside revenue.

Labor witnesses argued that online casino growth reduces in‑person visitation and threatens union jobs. Representatives of Unite Here Local 24 and local casino employees said job losses have followed iGaming in other states, pointing to Innovation Group estimates of nearly 2,818 lost Ohio jobs under the Innovation Group's scenario and describing declines in employment where iGaming launched.

Regulatory and legal issues also featured heavily. Merle Pratt, representing veterans' and fraternal charitable organizations, asked that charitable electronic instant‑bingo remain regulated by the Ohio attorney general rather than be consolidated under the casino regulator, citing differences in mission and scale. Attorney Nathaniel Fouch told the committee the bill may run afoul of Article XV, Section 6 of the Ohio Constitution — the state's anti‑lottery provisions — and argued that the constitutional exceptions for the state lottery, charitable bingo and brick‑and‑mortar casino facilities do not clearly extend to statewide internet casino games. "By purporting to legalize and regulate Internet gambling and Internet lottery gaming, this bill attempts to affect something the Ohio Constitution expressly forbids," Fouch said.

Industry and implementation experts asked the committee to consider how legal retail VLTs and regulated distributed‑gaming systems could replace illegal machines and bring oversight. ARC Gaming co‑CEOs and route operators said placing regulated terminals in licensed establishments, with cameras, staff training and central monitoring, would reduce the illegal market and return revenue to the state and local businesses. They warned that legalization without a retail option could leave many small operators at a competitive disadvantage.

What the committee directed: No formal votes were taken. Chair Manning announced a continuation: the committee will meet again next week and invited witnesses on a mailing list to sign up for additional appearances. Several witnesses were asked to submit supporting documentation and analyses for the record.

Context and next steps: Committee members will weigh the revenue models, job‑impact estimates and constitutional concerns as they consider amendments. Proponents urged licensing structures and fees that would allow multiple operators and smaller entrants; retailers and route operators sought a limited retail VLT allocation; public‑health advocates asked for larger, dedicated mitigation funding and stronger guardrails; and lawyers flagged constitutional risk that could prompt litigation if the legislature proceeds without amendment. The committee did not take action on the bill at this hearing and scheduled follow‑up testimony.