Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Senate hearing advances enforcement tools to curb illegal online gambling
Loading...
Summary
Lawmakers and industry witnesses urged stronger civil enforcement against illegal online casinos and sweepstakes operators under SB 652, citing lost state revenue, consumer harms and gaps in current authority; banks and payment processors asked for clearer compliance language. No committee vote was taken.
Senators and witnesses told the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee that illegal online gambling harms Marylanders and state coffers and that civil enforcement tools are needed to hold operators and ancillary vendors to account.
"Illegal gambling in Maryland is an incredible scourge," said the bill sponsor, who argued SB 652 would let the attorney general and prosecutors use cease-and-desist letters, injunctive relief, fines and other civil remedies to shut down offshore and other unlicensed operators and to target the third-party vendors and payment processors that enable them. The sponsor said the bill is designed to escalate enforcement from letters to civil remedies before criminal prosecution.
Dr. Jennifer Bescott of the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Agency told the committee the agency already sends cease-and-desist notices but lacks the authority to pursue broader enforcement; she said the agency's letters achieve compliance only about 25 percent of the time and described SB 652 as expanding tools to disrupt illegal operators.
Commercial gaming companies and casino operators testified in support, arguing the bill would protect regulated operators and workers and would align Maryland with other states taking similar steps. Mark Stewart of the Cordish Companies emphasized that the bill tackles not only illegal operators but the "ecosystem" of marketing affiliates, payment processors and other third parties that allow the market to flourish.
Financial institutions and the Maryland Bankers Association supported the stated intent but asked for technical amendments. Evan Richards warned that provisions deeming a financial transaction provider to have "constructive knowledge" of illegal activity based solely on a posted URL could create compliance burdens and expose banks to penalties for masked or re-routed transactions. He urged clarifying language to avoid penalizing banks that follow federal anti-money-laundering rules once notified.
Supporters pointed to consumer-protection gaps: illegal sweepstakes casinos and certain unregulated platforms offer no problem-gambling safeguards, no age and identity verification in practice, and no recourse for customers when losses occur. Brad Rifkin of Caesars and representatives of other regulated casinos described a proliferation of sweepstakes-style platforms and recent litigation by Baltimore against sweepstakes sites.
The committee heard questions from senators about the scope of the bill, how it would interact with federal enforcement, and whether the measures would affect legitimate social gaming apps that do not provide cash-out opportunities. Agency witnesses said the statutes target play that involves "consideration, chance and an opportunity to receive a cash-equivalent reward," and that social games without those elements are not the intended targets.
The hearing concluded with no committee vote and with proponents and regulated-industry witnesses urging a favorable report and banking and payments stakeholders seeking amendments to the enforcement and financial-transaction provisions.
