Maryland Online Casino Legislation Faces Uphill Battle

Progress has been slow to get online casino legislation passed in the state of Maryland. By all indications, that is something that is likely to continue into the foreseeable future.

Earlier this year, two pieces of iGaming legislation appeared in walls that house Marland's Congress. The first one was HB 17, which was presented in the House while SB 340 found its way to the Senate floor. Both bills represent the state's latest attempt to bring iGaming access to the residents of Maryland. To say both bills received little fanfare upon presentation would be an understatement.

The Cordish Companies Address HB 17 & SB 340

The Cordish Companies own and operate Maryland Live! in Hanover, Maryland. That gives them a vested interest in bringing iGaming to the masses. It's noteworthy that a key Cordish Companies representative was invited to weigh in on what they saw in HB 17 & SB 340.

It started on January 29, 2025, when Maryland Sen. Ron Watson’s HB 340 proposal was presented on the Senate floor for discussion. Given time to address the bill, the Cordish Companies represented stated they were deeply concerned about a potential loss of revenue at the company's Maryland casino. They also expressed concerns about the loss of retail casino jobs, claiming it could hurt the local economy.

The next hearing on the docket was a Maryland House of Delegates’ Ways and Means Committee meeting, which was held on February 10, 2025. The same Cordish representative was at that hearing and expressed the same concerns.

SB 340 sponsor Watson responded to these concerns by reminding everyone that the Cordish Companies were running an iGaming website in Pennsylvania. HB 17 sponsored Del. Vanessa Atterbeary also responded by suggesting an amendment could be made that would eliminate iGaming license access for Maryland Live.

Penn Entertainment and Other Vested Parties Weigh In

Other interested parties showed up at both hearings to weigh in on their concerns. One of those parties was a representative from Penn Entertainment. Taking a different approach, he stated that his company was opposed to giving iGaming licenses to parties outside of the retail casino sphere. He also mentioned that minus such a provision, the rest of the bill might be something that Penn could support.

Here is a list of other interest parties and their concerns:

- MGM Resorts management was in agreement with the Penn representative.

- A representative from Churchill Downs spoke of concerns about the potential for revenue declines at its Ocean Downs retail casino property.

- A hospitality labor union representative from Unite Here was opposed to any legislation that would cost jobs.

- Other interest parties opposed any iGaming legislation without giving reasons

The problem with all of this negativity is it is reaching the residents of Maryland. That doesn't bode well for either bill since ultimately the passing of iGaming legislation has to be done via a voting referendum.

Indeed, it looks like a longshot that iGaming legislation will get passed in Maryland this year!