Broad testimony before Ways and Means as delegates weigh legalizing iGaming in Maryland

Delegate Vanessa Atterberry introduced House Bill 17 in a Ways and Means Committee hearing on Feb. 10, seeking to authorize internet casino gaming in Maryland with a licensing framework, diversity requirements, consumer protections and fees intended to bring unregulated play into a state‑regulated market.

The bill, Atterberry said, is intended “to capture the already existing illegal online gaming market in the state of Maryland that is operating to the tune of $7,000,000,000, annually,” and to create a regulated alternative that funds education and problem‑gambling resources while imposing safeguards for minors and at‑risk players.

What supporters told the committee

Witnesses for the bill included trade groups, prospective license applicants and casino industry representatives who argued legalized iGaming would generate new tax revenue, bring offshore operators under state oversight and enable stronger consumer protections. Richard Taylor, BetMGM’s director of responsible gambling, told the committee: “By legalizing iGaming, Maryland can provide a safe regulated alternative ensuring that consumers are protected while the state collects tax revenues for vetted gaming companies.” Several industry witnesses described tools used now in regulated markets, including age verification, deposit and spending limits, voluntary self‑exclusion and proactive account monitoring.

Atterberry walked members through policy components in the bill: a $1,000,000 license fee (with payment plans and renewal terms), a hard‑coded $10,000,000 employee displacement fund to help workers affected by cannibalization, and a tax framework discussed in committee testimony that included a 55 percent top rate for certain games and lower rates for live‑dealer products as legislative options. The bill would also require diversity plans from licensees, and call for reporting to the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Commission on player behavior flags and program outcomes.

Concerns from unions, treatment experts and some casino operators

Labor unions, treatment providers and several casino operators opposed or urged caution. Unite Here, the largest U.S. casino workers union, argued iGaming has coincided with steep job losses in markets such as Atlantic City and Detroit; its research witness reported a decline in hotel and food service jobs where iGaming grew. Mary Drexler of the Maryland Center of Excellence on Problem Gambling testified the research shows higher rates of problem gambling among online players and warned that easier access increases harm. On the floor, union members and casino employees described tip‑dependent positions that would lose income if foot traffic declined.

Economic analysis and debate over cannibalization

The committee heard competing evidence about fiscal impacts. An updated analysis submitted by the Innovation Group, which performed the state’s earlier study, said updated data through 2024 point to a larger cannibalization effect than earlier estimated — roughly 16 percent of casino revenue — and projected potential job losses and lost local tax receipts that offset some iGaming tax gains. Industry witnesses disputed some of those projections and emphasized state revenue potential if the market is regulated and taxed; trade witnesses presented revenue scenarios and urged structured diversity and consumer‑protection rules.

Committee action and next steps

The hearing produced lengthy questioning but no committee vote on HB 17 in the transcript. Members repeatedly pressed proponents on age verification, the effectiveness of voluntary exclusions and how the state would respond if local retail businesses and casinos lost revenues. Several members asked the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Commission and the attorney general to provide legal and enforcement analysis on whether and how offshore operators can be shut down.

Ending

The committee concluded the hearing after extensive testimony from both supporters and opponents. No vote was recorded in the transcript; members requested additional information and indicated further work and deliberation would follow.