Maryland hearing pits casinos and lottery regulators against social‑games industry over proposed ban on sweepstakes-style sites
Loading...
Summary
A contentious Ways and Means hearing focused on HB295, a bill to ban so‑called interactive or sweepstakes casinos. Regulators and brick‑and‑mortar casinos said the sites evade oversight and harm consumers; social‑games companies said many products are lawful free‑to‑play offerings with safeguards and that a ban would push lawful operators offshore.
House Bill 295 drew the day’s longest and most heated debate in the Ways and Means Committee, as state regulators, casino operators and makers of social and sweepstakes games squared off over whether Maryland should ban interactive online games that mimic casino play.
John Martin, director of the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Agency, told the committee HB295 aims to clarify that ‘interactive games’ offered outside state licensing are illegal and are hurting consumer protections and state revenue. ‘For an activity to be gaming or gambling, there must be three elements: consideration, chance, and prize,’ Martin said, urging lawmakers to give regulators clearer tools to pursue unlicensed operators.
The bill’s supporters — including executives from Caesars, MGM National Harbor and Live Casino and Hotel Maryland — described sweepstakes casinos as offering blackjack, roulette and other casino‑style games ‘without any problem‑gaming oversight’ and said they divert tax dollars from regulated businesses. Brad Rifkin of Horseshoe Baltimore said those operators ‘don’t pay taxes’ and called the bill a way to protect consumers and Maryland jobs.
Opponents, including representatives of large social‑games companies and the Social Gaming Leadership Alliance, said HB295 would sweep up legitimate free‑to‑play and promotional games. Sean Ostrow, director of SGLA, said the industry follows commercial‑law sweepstakes rules and has voluntary consumer protections such as age verification and self‑exclusion. Industry witnesses repeatedly raised the example of Candy Crush and Words With Friends, arguing their typical free‑to‑play models are not the bill’s intended target.
The hearing showed key technical disagreements about how to define the line between entertainment and gambling. Scott Ward of the Sports Betting Alliance cited a market estimate that roughly $8 billion is wagered in Maryland each year through unregulated online sweepstakes operators and argued HB295 is a first step toward stopping offshore sites. Opponents said the bill’s language risks chilling innovation and would push lawful operators out of Maryland unless regulators move concurrently to create a safe, taxed alternative such as licensed iGaming.
Several delegates pressed witnesses on enforcement and drafting: whether the bill should target only operators that enable direct cash‑equivalent conversion, and whether narrow regulatory fixes would better address the public‑safety concerns without banning entire categories of social games.
The committee did not take a vote on HB295 at the hearing. The exchange left clear follow‑up questions for staff and drafters about definitions, fiscal impacts and what a regulated alternative to offshore sweepstakes would look like.
