Under the proposed changes to Chapter 13 of the state’s “Sports Wagering Licensee Minimum Internal Control Standards,” online sportsbooks could deduct only 5% of their previous year’s gross gaming revenue in free play, down from the current 20% allowed after the first year.

Currently, a sportsbook (retail or mobile) can deduct all free promotional play from its taxable proceeds in its first year. After, the figure drops to 20%. Retail sportsbook will still be able to deduct that 20% if the lottery’s changes are implemented.

If operators exceed these limits, the excess promos would be treated as taxable revenue.

Maryland Recently Raised Sports Betting Tax

The proposal comes on the heels of the recent tax rate increase for online sports betting operators from 15% to 20%.

The 5% increase was still some relief for operators. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore had proposed a 30% rate as part of his larger Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act.

Moore had argued that the rate will keep up with some neighboring states, such as Pennsylvania (a 36% tax) and Delaware (a 50% tax).

Maryland is already among the more aggressive states when it comes to gambling taxation. For example, slots at retail casinos are taxed between 50% and 61% depending on the casino.

Additionally, while it did not pass, Maryland considered legalizing online casinos in 2024 with a proposed tax rate of around 46%. That would have been the highest among iGaming states.

Besides tax rates, Maryland has relatively high licensing fees for sports betting operators. Mobile sportsbooks must pay up to $2 million upfront, which consists of the license fee and a performance bond.

Meanwhile, large retail sportsbooks must put up to $1 million. These figures rank Maryland among the most expensive states to enter.

Other States Have Implemented Similar Changes

The Maryland Lottery proposal is not unprecedented. Limiting promo deductions is a common move by states after the initial launch of sports betting, when operators rely heavily on promos to attract customers.

As the markets mature, some regulators move to remove or reduce the deduction cap as a means to increase tax revenue. At the same time, they close a “loophole” that operators use to pay less taxes.

If Maryland adopts the proposed changes, it will join several others. Recently, Colorado passed a bill that will reduce the promo deduction percentage to 2% until December 31, 2025. Between January 1, 2026, and June 30, 2026, the rate will decrease to 1%, and thereafter, it will be zero.

In 2022, Virginia limited promotional deductions to the first 12 months of the operator’s activity, effectively phasing out deductions after that.

Meanwhile, Connecticut has adopted a gradual decrease from 25% downward by 5% annually until full elimination.

Some states have attempted but failed to enact similar measures. North Carolina proposed a gradual elimination of promo deductions in 2024, but the measure did not pass in the legislature.

Meanwhile, in Missouri, which expects to launch sports betting in December, voters rejected a ballot proposal to cap promotional deductions at 25% of total wagers.

One notable outlier is Ohio, which initially banned promo deductions when it launched the sports betting market in January 2023.

However, the state has decided to loosen the rules. Starting in 2027, operators will be able to deduct up to 10% of promotional credits wagered. From 2032 onward, the figure will increase to 20%.

The post Maryland Proposes Strict Limits on Sportsbook Promo Deductions appeared first on CasinoBeats.

Idaho, Michigan, and Washington have long been ineligible jurisdictions for sweepstakes casinos, but in the past few months, several others have moved towards prohibition.

Montana was the first to officially ban the platforms at the end of May. Connecticut and New York followed in June, while Nevada granted its gambling regulators more authority to prosecute operators from out-of-state, including sweepstakes casinos.

Elsewhere, Louisiana lawmakers also passed a ban, but Gov. Jeff Landry vetoed it, stating it was unnecessary. Since then, the state has sent a cease-and-desist order to 40 offshore and sweepstakes operators, with many now starting to comply.

Additionally, Maryland, Delaware, and Mississippi are among the states employing the same regulatory tactic, issuing cease-and-desist letters.

State-by-State Breakdown: Sweepstakes Casino Exits and Holdouts

So, which platforms have complied? CasinoBeats has examined the terms and conditions of a sample of well-established sweepstakes brands.

Research conducted by CasinoBeats was accurate at the time of publication.

The study explicitly analyzed the terms and conditions, and which states are mentioned expressly as prohibited. CasinoBeats can not confirm whether each operator is applying its terms and conditions, and is aware that several other sweepstakes casinos may be operational in each individual state.

Montana

Every single sweepstakes casino that we’ve checked has now listed Montana as an ineligible jurisdiction.

The only exception is Luckybird.io, which continues to welcome players from Montana.

New York

Sweepstakes casinos exit New York as early as March, when a Senate bill advanced through committees.

At the beginning of June, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced that her office had shut down 26 platforms. That was followed by an official ban passed by the state legislature, pending Governor Kathy Hochul’s signature.

With that said, the following sweepstakes casinos no longer operate in New York:

• Baba Casino
• Carnival Citi
• Casino Click
• Chanced and sister site Punt.com
• Chumba Casino and sister sites, LuckyLand Slots and Global Poker
• DingDingDing
• Fliff and sister site Sidepots
• Fortune Coins and sister sites Zula Casino, Sportzino, and Yay Casino
• Fortune Wheelz and sister casinos Funrize, FunzCity, Fortune Wheelz, NoLimitCoins, and TaoFortune
• Funzpoints
• Golden Hearts Games
• High 5 Casino
• Jackpota and sister sites McLuck Casino, Hello Millions, Jackpota, Mega Bonanza, and SpinBlitz.
• Legendz Casino
• Lonestar Casino
• Modo.us
• Moonspin
• Play Fame
• Pulsz Casino and Pulsz Bingo
• RealPrize
• Rebet
• Rolling Riches
• Smiles Casino
• Spree
• Stake.us
• SweepSlots
• Sweeptastic
• The Money Factory
• Vegas Gems
• WOW Vegas

Notably, Crown Coins, Luckybird.io, and Spinfinite still list New York as an eligible jurisdiction.

Connecticut

While the Louisiana governor vetoed the sweepstakes ban bill, Connecticut Gov. Joe Lombardo signed the ban on June 5, joining Montana.

Since then, most platforms have been exiting similarly to New York and Montana, with a few exceptions.

Platforms that still accept Connecticut players include: Crown Coins, Fortune Coins, Funzpoints, Spinfinite, Sportzino, The Money Factory, Yay Casino, and Zula Casino.

Meanwhile, Luckybird.io, which serves New York and Montana, does not accept players from Connecticut.

Nevada

Nevada took a different approach from explicitly banning the platforms.

Instead, it passed a bill that gives state regulators more power to target and prosecute out-of-state operators without Nevada licenses who are operating illegally in the state, including sweepstakes casinos.

That has resulted in almost all platforms exiting the state. CasinoBeats has found at least four operators that do not explicitly prohibit players from Nevada from registering.

Maryland

Earlier this year, the Maryland Senate passed a bill banning sweepstakes, but the measure died in the House. Still, the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Agency has stepped up and targeted over a dozen platforms.

Some like VGW’s Chumba Casino have not complied, but others have. They include:

• Baba Casino
• Carnival Citi
• Casino Click
• McLuck Casino and sister sites Hello Millions, Mega Bonanza, Jackpota, and SpinBlitz
• Modo.us
• Play Fame
• Pulsz Casino and Pulsz Bingo
• Rebet
• Rolling Riches
• Sidepot Casino
• Smiles Casino
• Spree
• Stake.us

Louisiana

The reason for the governor’s veto on the sweepstakes ban bill in Louisiana is that he believed state gambling regulators and authorities could force the platforms out without legislation.

Soon after his veto, the Louisiana Gaming Control Board announced that it had targeted 40 unlicensed offshore and sweepstakes casinos.

While the regulator didn’t release names, the following platforms have now exited the state:

• Baba Casino
• Carnival Citi
• Crown Coins
• Funzpoints
• High 5 Casino
• McLuck and sister sites Hello Millions, Mega Bonanza, Jackpota, and SpinBlitz
• Modo.us
• Moonspin
• Play Fame
• Pulsz Casino and Pulsz Bingo
• Rebet
• Rolling Riches
• Sidepot Casino
• Spree
• The Money Factory
• WOW Vegas

Mississipi

The same day that the Louisiana Gaming Commission announced its action against sweepstakes casinos, the Mississippi Gaming Commission announced it had served several offshore casinos and Chumba Casino with cease-and-desist letters.

While Chumba has not complied, a few operators have chosen to leave:

• Baba Casino
• Carnival Citi
• Pulsz Casino and Pulsz Bingo (certain promotions)
• Sidepot Casino

Delaware

The Delaware Division of Gaming Enforcement has been targeting sweepstakes casinos for over two years, albeit without much success initially.

In April, it announced it had served VGW’s LuckyLand Slots with a cease-and-desist order. Meanwhile, its sister site Chumba Casino was served almost two years ago. While it ignored the first order, VGW decided to withdraw from the state after receiving the April notice.

Sweepstakes platforms that no longer accept Delaware customers include:

• Baba Casino
• Carnival Citi
• Chanced and sister site Punt.com
• Chumba Casino and sister sites, LuckyLand Slots and Global Poker
• Funrize and sister sites FunzCity, Fortune Wheelz, NoLimit Coins, and Tao Fortune
• Luckybird.io
• McLuck and sister sites Hello Millions, Mega Bonanza, Jackpota, and SpinBlitz
• Modo.us
• Moonspin
• Play Fame
• Rolling Riches
• Sidepot
• Smiles Casino
• Spree
• Stake.us

Alabama, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Others

In addition to the states above, many sweepstakes operators have chosen to exit other states. The most common ones are Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia:

• Baba Casino: Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee, Vermont, and West Virginia.
• Carnival Citi: Florida, Kentucky, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, West Virginia.
• Casino Click: Kentucky
• Chanced and sister site Punt.com: Kentucky, West Virginia, Washington, DC
• Fortune Coins, Sportzino Casino, Yay Casino, and Zula Casino: Georgia
• Funrize, NoLimitCoins, FunzCity, Fortune Wheelz, TaoFortune: Wyoming, West Virginia
• Legendz: Kentucky, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia
• McLuck Casino and sister sites Hello Millions, Mega Bonanza, Jackpota, and SpinBlitz: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, West Virginia
• Modo us: Arizona, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.
• Moonspin: Georgia, Nebraska, and North Dakota.
• Play Fame: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, New Jersey, West Virginia
• Pulsz Casino and Pulsz Bingo: Alabama, Tennessee, and West Virginia
• Rolling Riches: Hawaii, Kentucky, West Virginia
• Sidepot: Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia
• Smiles Casino: Kentucky
• Spinfinite: Alabama, Delaware, Tennessee
• Spree: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, and West Virginia
• Stake.us: Kentucky, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia.

The post Sweepstakes Casinos Exit Multiple States Amid Crackdowns in CT, LA, MD, NY, and NV appeared first on CasinoBeats.

Through an X thread, US gaming and sports betting attorney Daniel Wallach shared key exchanges between the court and Kalshi lawyers.

Judge Abelson specifically challenged the platform on why it has changed its stance on sports event contracts compared to its arguments in its case against the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

The judge also stressed a key issue, whether Congress intended to preempt state regulations for sports event contracts.

To gain further clarity, Judge Abelson requested supplemental briefings from both sides to clarify how Kalshi’s statements in previous cases should inform the court’s view.

Court Challenges Kalshi’s Conflicting Legal Positions

Kalshi has launched a series of lawsuits against several state regulators, including MLGCC. The lawsuits are a result of cease-and-desist letters from MLGCC and the others, who argue that the platform is conducting illegal gambling through its sports prediction event contracts.

Kalshi argues that the contracts, essentially wagers, are legitimate derivative contracts. Those contracts are overseen and regulated by the CFTC, not state gambling regulators. However, that position contradicts what Kalshi argued in a separate federal case against CFTC over political event contracts.

In this case, Kalshi argued that outcomes of sporting events have no real economic significance. They serve only for amusement and do not qualify as “excluded commodities” under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).

Under CEA, to be an “excluded commodity”, an event’s outcome must be beyond the parties’ control and “associated with a financial, economic, or commercial consequence.” Previously, Kalshi has even argued that contracts involving games are not something the platform would want to list, as they don’t have any economic value.

Now, Kalshi claims its sports event contracts qualify as “event contracts” under CEA. The platform claims that sporting events do have financial implications, such as increased TV viewership and advertising revenue.

As Wallach points out in another X post, a significant flaw in that argument is that the financial consequences related to advertising or broadcasting do not mean the event’s outcome is economically significant. A key question is whether the result of the sports event has financial or commercial consequences.

Kalshi’s prior narrow interpretation of “gaming” conflicts with its current broad claims about economic consequences, creating a critical legal inconsistency.

Court Questions CFTC’s Exclusive Jurisdiction Over States

A potentially key question raised by Judge Abelson is what the language of CEA intends. The judge questioned if the “exclusive jurisdiction” language in Section 2(a)(1)(A) means that CFTC jurisdiction is “exclusive” only regarding federal agencies, and not state agencies (including MLGCC).

Abelson also highlights the phrase “except as hereinabove provided” in Section 2(a)(1)(a), which he interprets as “unless otherwise stated.”

He further questioned whether the following savings clause indicates that Congress did not intend to override or restrict state laws. The clause states that nothing in the law should override regulatory authority granted to federal and state agencies.

The legislative history indicates that in 2010, Senator Lincoln expressed concerns that the CFTC should prevent contracts contrary to the public interest. He warned that sports event contracts had no commercial value and could only be tools for gambling purposes.

Kalshi acknowledged that Lincoln’s statements likely indicated Congress’s intent at the time. However, it argued that the status of sports betting “has changed dramatically since 2010.” Today, it is lawful in most states, including Maryland. Kalshi continued to say that the country’s opinion on whether sports betting is contrary to the public interest has changed since 2010.

In response, Ableson pointed out that the likely reason is that sportsbooks are heavily regulated. They must also ensure that people don’t get addicted. The court emphasized that state gambling laws are carefully created with strict regulatory oversight.

Could Judicial Estoppel Apply?

The court points out that Kalshi previously stated that sports event contracts do not qualify as “swaps” (commodities) when it suited their position in the CFTC case. However, now it says they are.

If the court determines that Kalshi is attempting to change its position to gain an unfair advantage, it may apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel. That is a legal principle that prevents a party from contradicting earlier statements in court, ensuring fairness and consistency.

Therefore, if the court applies the judicial estoppel, Kalshi won’t be able to claim that the contracts are permitted under federal law, as they’ve already argued they aren’t in the CFTC case.

That could be a pivotal development as it could seriously weaken Kalshi’s defense that federal law protects it against state gambling laws. As a result, Maryland (and other states) could receive more power to shut down or regulate Kalshi’s sports-event betting contracts.

Potential Ripple Effects of a Favorable Ruling for Kalshi

The results of this case could have significant implications for Kalshi elsewhere. The platform has already secured some legal victories. Federal courts in New Jersey and Nevada have granted it temporary injunctions against the state’s gambling regulators. These injunctions could become permanent if there is a favorable outcome in the Maryland case.

If Abelson rules that Kalshi’s sports events are explicitly under CFTC regulations, it would represent a significant victory for the platform.
It would exempt Kalshi from state-level gambling regulations and solidify its regulatory framework at the federal level.

Furthermore, upcoming leadership changes at the CFTC could further help Kalshi.

Donald Trump’s nominee for CFTC Chairperson, Brian D. Quintentz, currently sits on the Kalshi board. If elected, he has indicated that he will resign from Kalshi. He will also recuse himself from any matters surrounding the company for a year.

While Quintentz has recused himself, his familiarity with the event predictions could influence the agency’s approach to oversight of Kalshi.

Notably, the CFTC has so far remained inactive in the legal battles between Kalshi and state regulators. Despite requests to intervene from some states, including Tennessee and Arizona, the agency has yet to act.

The post Maryland Federal Court Challenges Kalshi’s Inconsistent Sports Events Contract Claims appeared first on CasinoBeats.

Signed into law last week, Governor Wes Moore approved House Bill 352 in a bid to start extracting larger tax revenues from the state’s growing gambling sector. Despite being only recently approved, the increase was part of a larger Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act, which was passed by Maryland lawmakers earlier this year.

However, the news came as some relief to betting operators after it was revealed that Moore had initially proposed a larger tax hike to 30%.

Governor Moore had initially argued that the higher rate was in keeping with several of Maryland’s neighbors, including Pennsylvania (36%) and Delaware (50%). Nevertheless, lawmakers eventually opted for the more moderate level of 20% after budget negotiations.

Maryland Public Funding Drive Behind the Tax Increase

Under the new law, following the signing of HB 352, 5% of Maryland’s mobile sports wagering proceeds will now be allocated directly into the state’s general fund. 

The remaining betting tax proceeds will support the state’s Blueprint for Maryland’s Future Fund – a dedicated 10-year initiative designed to increase educational funding.

Since launching legal sports betting in December 2021, Maryland has collected over $160 million in tax revenue for education alone.

Meanwhile, the existing tax rate on in-person betting remains unchanged at just 15%, excluding retail betting operators and venues from the new tax measures. However, experts suggest that the prevalence of online sports betting over in-person wagering methods in Maryland is the reason why lawmakers opted not to change the retail betting tax rate, for now.

Other States Following Suit with Sportsbooks Taking the Brunt

The changes in Maryland’s tax regulations mean online sports betting firms are now operating in the same tax bracket as in states such as Illinois and Ohio, both of which also impose a 20% tax on mobile betting.

However, states such as Ohio have proposed more extreme measures of doubling their tax rate to 40%. As more and more states begin to test the tax threshold in the evolving sports betting environment, it illustrates how lawmakers are targeting gambling operator profits to help rejuvenate public spending budgets.

“This wasn’t just about balancing a budget,” Moore said in a statement. “It was about weathering two storms: A fiscal crisis and a new White House that attacks our economy.”

For sportsbook operators, the imposition of the state’s increasing tax levies is already hitting their bottom lines. DraftKings – one of the eleven licensed online sportsbooks in Maryland – has already projected that the latest tax hike will reduce its 2025 revenue by $30 million while also cutting its adjusted EBITDA by $26 million.

In addition to Maryland, states such as North Carolina and Louisiana, like Ohio, are actively pursuing changes that could see tax increases hitting gambling operators. Colorado, too, has moved to close the legislative loophole posed by the tax status of free bets, aiming to claw back over $12 million a year for state projects.

For now, Maryland’s industry approach signals that it is taking a measured approach to raising tax revenues without the imminent risk of an exodus of online sportsbooks from the state. 

The inevitable trend of further states applying tax hikes will undoubtedly result in sportsbooks across the country continuing to take additional hits to their profits in the future.

The post Maryland Ups Online Sports Betting Tax to 20% But Stops Short of Original Proposal appeared first on CasinoBeats.

The filing is in response to the agency’s cease-and-desist orders.

Why Crypto.com Believes CFTC Rules Preempt Maryland State Law

“The law is very clear for derivatives and prediction market event contracts, and we are proud to offer these services through a fully compliant and regulated platform,” Crypto.com Chief Legal Officer Nick Lundgren said in a statement. “Our decision to sue the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Commission is necessary at this time, and we are fully confident that the existing laws will be recognized and upheld in our favor.”

Maryland has called to eliminate sports-event contract trading, claiming it is an unlicensed form of sports betting. It is already one of six states to issue cease-and-desist orders against predictive market platforms, joining Illinois, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, and Ohio. Tennessee has also expressed concerns, without going to the same length.

Crypto.com, referred to in the legal filing as “CDNA,” has detailed eight “factual allegations against the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Commission. These are as follows:

1. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate derivatives contracts in federally registered markets.
2. Event contracts are exchange-traded financial instruments used to allocate risk.
3. The CEA and CFTC Regulations establish a comprehensive federal regulatory framework for trading in event contracts and other derivatives.
4. The CFTC’s enforcement authority over DCMs and its power to prohibit contracts contrary to the public interest.
5. CDNA is a federally regulated DCM that lists sports event contracts.
6. The Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Commission threatened CDNA with legal action for offering sports event contracts to Maryland residents.
7. The Nevada Gaming Commission has been enjoined from enforcing its gaming laws with respect to event contracts.
8. Defendants’ threatened action will imminently and irreparably harm CDNA and interfere with its ability to conduct federally regulated activities.

Crypto.com Leans on Kalshi Nevada Ruling in Maryland

The filing repeatedly references Kalshi’s victory over the Nevada Gaming Control Board, which granted the company’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

CEO Tarek Mansour has remained a fierce advocate amidst scrutiny, calling prediction markets the “quintessential truth machines” in a social media post last month.

“With trust in traditional institutions at an all-time low, people are turning to prediction markets at an astronomical pace,” Mansour wrote on X, the site formerly known as Twitter. “The growth of the ecosystem in the last year is a testament to how important they have become to the American people.”

Kalsh’s very similar lawsuit against Maryland alleged that the state’s actions could cause “irreparable harm” to its business. 

While sports betting is legally operative in only 38 states plus Washington, D.C., prediction markets — in which users can buy and sell contracts for real-world events such as the Super Bowl and March Madness — are available in all 50 states.

Crypto.com Claims State Actions ‘Without Merit’

Crypto.com defines event contracts as “exchange-traded financial instruments, known as a derivative or swap, that facilitate risk allocation to specific outcomes of underlying future events.”

In its complaint, it said that any state action “pertaining to derivative contracts traded under the jurisdiction of the (Community Futures Trading Commission)” is without merit.

As for Maryland’s stance, Lottery and Gaming Control Commission Director John Martin said, “We view this as a legal matter and a consumer protection matter, and there is also a fiscal interest for the State. Each of Maryland’s legal sports wagering operators completed a rigorous licensing process and is subject to extensive regulations that include responsible gaming requirements.”

Martin added that because companies like Kalshi, Crypto.com, and Robinhood continue to operate without proper licensing, they are avoiding the same sports wagering taxes that legal operators pay to the state. 

The post Crypto.com Joins Kalshi in Legal Fight Against Maryland Gaming Regulator appeared first on CasinoBeats.

In what amounts to an escalating crackdown on federally regulated prediction markets, Maryland has called to terminate sports event contract trading, declaring it a form of unlicensed sports betting.

Maryland’s state regulators—the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Commission—appear to have chosen to tackle the issue head-on. They have sent cease-and-desist notifications to Kalshi, Robinhood, and Crypto.com, demanding they immediately void sports-related event contracts within state lines.

The move makes the Old Line State the sixth known state alongside Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, Nevada, and Montana to take regulatory action against the trading platforms.

Looking to emphasize the perceived nature of unlicensed and unauthorized sports wagering under Maryland law, John Martin, Director of the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Agency, wrote, “Kalshi is operating in Maryland and is offering and conducting what is, in fact, wagering on sporting events.”

As stated in the letter dated April 7, Kalshi has been given 15 days to respond to Maryland’s demands and confirm whether it intends to comply. Failure to do so may lead to legal challenges, though the state has not yet announced any court action.

Montana One of the First to Take Action

While the Nevada Gaming Control Board was the first to send out a cease and desist order, Montana was not far behind, despite its statement of intent being overshadowed by New Jersey’s similar announcement the following day.

Montana’s Gambling Control Division’s objections to Kalshi stem from its certification that the firm’s sports contracts meet the legal definition of gambling under MCA § 23-5-112(14)(a).

Jeremy S. Craft, Chief Legal Counsel for Montana’s DOJ Gambling Control Division, highlighted the state’s objections, stating Kalshi lacks the appropriate Montana gambling license to operate legally in the state, writing: “Kalshi’s event contracts are gambling… because participants risk money or other things of value for a gain that is contingent… upon lot, chance, or the operation of a gambling enterprise.”

To date, Kalshi has facilitated more than $380 million in NCAA March Madness traded contracts, which included wagering on college teams, Houston, and eventual men’s championship winners Florida. The platform’s lucrative contract exchange expansion follows the New York organization’s entry into major sporting events, including the Super Bowl and now March Madness, which has ignited the scrutiny of the six state gambling regulators.

Will Kalshi Push Back in Maryland?

For the time being, Kalshi, Robinhood, and Crypto.com have all cited their regulatory approval from the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as justification for their operations in each state.

Kalshi, the most high-profile of the trio, argues that its contested product offerings are, in fact, financial derivatives and should be treated like other federally regulated instruments. “The CFTC is our regulator. If the CFTC tells us to stop, we will absolutely stop. If they don’t, then we won’t,” Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour told TechCrunch.

Mansour directly compared Kalshi to a financial exchange where the underlying asset is an event, not a commodity. He also claimed that the gambling lobby was orchestrating the complaints, arguing that sportsbooks like FanDuel and DraftKings are pressuring state regulators because it directly threatens their state-licensed operations.

With Kalshi having already filed lawsuits against Nevada and New Jersey claiming that state-level orders violate the federal Commodity Exchange Act, insiders expect similar legal battles will follow now in Maryland and Montana.

As things stand, Kalshi says it will remain in operation in all 50 states, pending further federal or judicial intervention.

The post Maryland Joins Montana in Issuing Kalshi With Cease and Desist Orders appeared first on CasinoBeats.

Wilna van Wyk

Legislation in Maryland has been proposed to prohibit online sweepstakes casinos and their promotion if passed.

Sen. Paul Corderman introduced SB 860, which now sits in the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee. 

What is SB 860 and How Will It Impact Online Sweepstakes Casinos?

Titled “An Act concerning Gaming – Prohibition of Online Sweepstakes Games and Revenue from Illegal Markets,” the bill seeks to put the onus on the State Lottery and Gaming Control Agency to deny and revoke licenses should operators be accepting revenue derived from illegal activity. 

The short bill seeks to define online sweepstakes games and establish potential penalties for those who generate revenue from them. 

It states that an online sweepstakes game is a “game, contest, or promotion” available on the Internet and accessible through a mobile phone, computer, or similar device. 

It adds, “utilizes a dual-currency system of payment allowing the player to exchange the currency for any prize or award of cash or cash equivalents, or any chance to win any prize or award or cash or cash equivalents.” 

Under proposed Maryland legislation, online sweepstake casinos are not restricted to casino-style games such as slots, video poker, and table games but also include lottery games, eInstants, keno, bingo, and sports wagering. 

The rules also stipulate that it would not outlaw games that do not award cash prizes or cash equivalents. 

Sen. Corderman’s rules would see anyone assisting an illegal online sweepstakes casino be at risk of losing its Maryland license. This includes “a persona holding a license, or a financial institution, payment processor, geolocation provider, gaming content supplier, platform provider or media affiliate of a person holding a license.” 

Simply supporting the operation or promotion of an online sweepstakes game, as previously defined, would become a breach of licensing terms. 

The bill seeks an amendment to Maryland’s criminal code. Anyone violating the legislation could face imprisonment of up to three years and a minimum fine of $10,000. The maximum fine is $100,000, and a person could face financial and criminal charges. 

How Other States Are Handling Online Sweepstakes Casinos

Online sweepstakes casinos have been a hot topic of conversation across the United States of America in recent weeks. 

The Arizona Department of Gaming (ADG) has issued a PSA warning residents of illegal gambling operations in the state that may seek to defraud them.

The announcement was released during Identity Theft Awareness Week and aims to safeguard Arizonans’ personal and financial information. 

In addition, the regulator warned that illegal online casinos and sweepstakes platforms masquerading as legitimate websites are inherently dangerous to users. The regulator makes clear that it can only take action or assist with withheld funds if the operator in question is regulated in the State. 

The states of Mississippi and New Jersey have taken a different approach, proposing to regulate instead of prohibit online casino sweepstakes. New Jersey’s proposed amendments would regulate and tax online sweepstake casinos the same way as any other digital gaming medium in the state.

Written By

Wilna van Wyk

Wilna van Wyk is an online casino enthusiast with over a decade of experience working with some of the world’s biggest gambling affiliates, including Thunderstruck Media and OneTwenty Group. She specializes in gambling sites and games and provides expert knowledge on the online casino industry’s essential fundamentals.

The post Maryland Bill Moves to Ban Online Sweepstakes Casinos appeared first on CasinoBeats.

The bill, which would have offered up to 30 online casino licences for the Old Line State, faced controversy from its inception and throughout its journey through the house as opponents fought against the motion.

A key issue surrounding the bill stemmed from a flurry of research studies that presented the issue of online casinos potentially cannibalising land-based venues.

One paper from Eilers and Krejcik commissioned by iDEA growth placed the impact on retail bottom lines at around two percent, whereas more damning studies found this figure to be somewhere between eight and 10 per cent, as suggested in research from The Innovation Group.

This led unions to come out in full force against the online casino bill, alongside anti-gambling opponents and retail organisations. The AFL-CIO and UNITE Here were just some of the labour groups that showed up in Maryland’s Capital, Annapolis to diminish the legislation. 

Despite this long-lasting opposition, a version of House Delegate Vanessa E Atterbeary’s House Bill 1319 managed to pass through the lower chamber in March by a vote of 92-43.

The bill undertook a similar process to that of the state’s consideration of sports betting in 2020, with Maryland voters weighing in on the subject via referendum. 

However, the Maryland Senate showed no interest in legalising igaming, which would have required a change to the state constitution, as the state budget was announced without an inclusion of tax revenue from online casino expansion. 

Bill HB 1339 was then not included on the agenda for the Budget and Taxation Committee, which met multiple times on Monday, spelling the end of Maryland’s igaming consideration for now.

The post Maryland online casino bill falls flat in the Senate appeared first on CasinoBeats.

Introduced last month, House Bill 1319 proposes the authorisation of igaming in the Old Line State, regulated by the Maryland State Lottery & Gaming Control Commission.

Through the amendments to the bill via the Maryland House Ways & Means Committee earlier this week, up to 30 wagering licences could be issued, lasting for five years with an initial $1m application fee per skin – which can be paid in instalments – and a renewal fee of one per cent of an operator’s average annual gross proceeds from the last three years.

Three different types of licences would be available for operators through HB 1319 – licences by right for brick-and-mortar casinos, Class B wagering facility licences and competitively-awarded licenses. The state’s retail casinos can have up to three licences.

Additional amendments to HB 1319 include a ban on credit cards for igaming, as well as a measure to provide a counsellor, previously an opt-in service, to individuals who enter the state’s voluntary self-exclusion service.

VLT and digital games revenue would still be taxed at 55 per cent, while live dealer revenue would be taxed at 20 per cent.

Maryland isn’t the only state that has recently proposed prohibiting the use of credit cards for gambling, as lawmakers in Pennsylvania are looking to introduce legislation that would ban the use of credit cards for sports betting, daily fantasy contests, ilottery and online casino.

Maryland lawmakers are scheduled to discuss HB1319 in the House of Representatives later today.

The post Maryland lawmakers amend online casino bill to include credit card ban appeared first on CasinoBeats.

Senator Ron Watson introduced and read the legislation for the first time on January 26 which, if passed, would make Maryland the eighth state in the US to legalise igaming.

SB0603 – which is a follow-up to SB0267 that was presented in the 2023 session – has the following synopsis:

“Authorising the State Lottery and Gaming Control Commission to issue certain licenses to certain video lottery operators and certain qualified applicants to conduct or participate in certain Internet gaming operations in the State; authorising the Governor, on recommendation of the Commission, to enter into certain multijurisdictional Internet gaming agreements with certain other governments, subject to certain limitations; and submitting the Act to a referendum of the qualified voters of the State.”

According to SB0603, igaming within the state would be regulated by the Maryland State Lottery & Gaming Control Commission.

Gambling companies wishing to operate within Maryland’s igaming space will have to pay a $1m fee for a five-year licence. State casinos and VLT operators will be able to offer online casinos. 

There will also be five additional licenses available to companies that have been headquartered in Maryland for at least 10 years and own at least a five per cent interest in a VLT operator. 

Should any of these companies be selected for a license, they would need to commit to building a $5m live dealer studio within the state.

Licencees will be subjected to a 47 per cent tax rate of adjusted revenue generated for the State Lottery Fund, which will allocate the funds as follows:

One per cent of all funds collected to a Problem Gambling Fund, one per cent to the State Lottery & Gaming Control Agency for the cost of background investigations and other regulatory activities, and the remaining funds to the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future Fund.

In addition, operators can deduct 100 per cent of promotional credit during their first year of operations in the state, but this percentage will drop to 20 per cent after the first year.

As the synopsis outlines, alongside legalising online casinos, the state will look into entering multistate igaming agreements if the bill is passed.

This means Maryland could join the Multi-State Internet Gaming Agreement for online poker, which currently consists of the states of Delaware, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey and West Virginia.

The bill will only become law if the Maryland public votes in favour of legalising igaming during a referendum in November 2024.

The post Online casino bill introduced in Maryland includes multistate igaming appeared first on CasinoBeats.