Share
There has been no formal action on either Maryland online casino bill in 2025 to this point, while the bills’ sponsors have heard mostly negative comments on their proposals from individuals and organizations in the commonwealth. Testimony on both pieces of legislation has included concerns ranging from job loss at land-based casinos to effects on people who struggle with disordered gaming.
It’s common for testimony at legislative hearings to skew negative. However, these sentiments in Maryland carry extra weight because the effort to legalize online casinos will ultimately require a public referendum. The content of the hearings suggests that without some significant change to the environment, there would be significant campaigns from iGaming opponents aimed at deterring voters from approving the measure.
The Cordish Companies weigh in on HB 17, SB 340
On Feb. 10, the Maryland House of Delegates’ Ways and Means Committee online slots, and online table games in Maryland.
That hearing followed a Jan. 29 hearing on SB 340, Maryland Sen. Ron Watson’s proposal to the same end. Both hearings featured oppositional testimony from gaming licensees in Maryland.
A representative from The Cordish Companies, which operates Maryland Live! in Hanover, spoke at both hearings. The representative raised concerns about a loss of revenue at the facility and a resulting reduction in staff.
While Watson replied that The Cordish Companies participate in iGaming in nearby Pennsylvania, Atterbeary suggested that an amendment to her bill could eliminate a potential license for Maryland Live! The Cordish Companies were ed by PENN Entertainment in testifying in opposition to the bills in both hearings.
However, PENN’s stance wasn’t as focused on cannibalization fears.
PENN Entertainment, others bring up additional concerns
PENN mentioned cannibalization fears but also expressed a grievance over the inclusion of provisions that would allow online gaming companies that don’t operate brick-and-mortar facilities in Maryland to obtain iGaming licenses. Representatives for PENN Entertainment said that without those provisions, they could the bills.
MGM Resorts ed PENN in that concern during the hearing on HB 17. During the hearing for SB 340, Churchill Downs voiced concerns about revenue declines at its Ocean Downs property in Berlin.
Other interests represented at the hearings would prefer for regulated casino gaming to continue to be limited to in-person play.
Unions, responsible gambling advocates add voices
Other entities appearing in opposition included Unite Here, a labor union representing hospitality workers in Maryland. A representative for Unite Here claimed were losing jobs as a result of regulated online casino play in other parts of the United States.
Responsible gambling advocates suggested that the gaming expansion would result in increased instances of people in Maryland dealing with problem gambling.
Testimony was not absolute in opposition to HB 17 and SB 340. GeoComply, which provides data and location services to online gambling companies, was among those to testify in . They were ed by operators of off-track-betting sites in Maryland who emphasized that provisions to include minority-owned, small, and women-owned businesses were crucial to their .
Opposition to HB 17 and SB 340 is significant now but also bears implications for the proposals’ futures.
Resistance complicates potential referendum
There are long-term implications for the hostile attitudes toward legal iGaming in Maryland. The primary consequence involves the potential referendum that either HB 17 or SB 340 would trigger.
Entities currently in opposition could fund campaigns to defeat the referendum. That makes gathering broad public crucial for the success of iGaming legalization efforts.
Representatives for both The Cordish Companies and PENN Entertainment affirmed that, despite their objections, the companies would apply for iGaming licenses if given the opportunity in Maryland. That suggests that the most adamant pressure for Marylanders to vote no on iGaming could come from unions.
Before the referendum can become a concern, though, HB 17 and SB 340 face the scrutiny of the Maryland Assembly. Debate on the issue of online casino play there has been hostile to the proposals.
