Share
As multiple state legislatures weigh whether to legalize online casino play within their borders, opponents of those efforts have organized themselves to pool their resources against iGaming expansion. The National Association Against iGaming (NAAiG) makes several claims regarding effects of online casinos being available to consumers.
The NAAiG’s website says its hip comprises retail casinos, advocacy groups, local businesses, and workers’ unions. These groups have individually—and often successfully—opposed online gambling expansion efforts in many states, but the association seeks to present a united front against iGaming across the United States.
NAAI announces launch, purpose
The NAAiG’s website states that the association is “a coalition of local businesses, industry veterans, community advocates and concerned citizens united to safeguard our communities from the harmful impacts of online gambling.” The page continues to state that the NAAiG was “founded to address the growing threats posed by iGaming” and is “dedicated to preserving local jobs, ensuring economic stability and promoting safe, responsible gaming practices.”
The website does not include many details about specific individuals or organizations that belong to it. There is only a broad statement that hip includes “casinos, local businesses, employees, unions and advocacy groups.”
Considering those hip claims, the NAAiG’s positions are easy to understand. People who may belong to the NAAiG are already voicing them.
Organizations have previously elaborated NAAiG’s positions
Advocacy groups, gaming businesses, and labor unions have already taken part in opposition actions to iGaming legislation across the US. The most recent example of such action happened in Maryland on Feb. 10.
During a hearing in Annapolis regarding a proposed constitutional amendment that would expand the state’s regulated online gaming framework to include online casino play, oppositional testimony came from business, gambling, and union representatives. The testimony highlighted claims that iGaming would result in a loss of revenue at physical casinos in Maryland, hospitality workers would lose their jobs as a result of that diminished revenue, and that online casino play represents a heightened threat compared to the same games at brick-and-mortar casinos.
The NAAiG site also claims that the organization is advocating against economic damage and mental health risks. At the same time, the page states the NAAiG s “in-person gaming for its economic and social benefits.”
The site promises “updates on advocacy efforts and initiatives.” At this time, no details are available about what those initiatives might entail.
At minimum, the NAAiG represents a potential consolidation of obstacles that proponents of regulated iGaming in the US face. State legislatures could see formal action from of the organization soon.
