Legislative calendars in several states for the coming weeks already have specific dates, and some decisions could go to a statewide vote in the fall.
Betting is moving online, the sweepstakes format is losing its safe harbor
The week in legislative news shows two parallel tracks. The first is tied to attempts to expand access to sports betting through online models, where the main question comes down to who will receive licenses and what regulatory oversight framework will be created.
The second track concerns sweepstakes casinos, a format that often straddles the line between promotional mechanics and gambling in legal terms. In a number of states, the same motif is heard: regulators lack enforcement tools, and lawmakers are trying to close gaps that allow operators to continue operating even after receiving cease-and-desist letters.
South Carolina and South Dakota debate online betting under different scenarios
In South Carolina, bill S 444 returns for consideration; it was introduced last year and carried over to the current session. Hearings will be held in the Senate Labor and Commerce Subcommittee, which formally brings the bill closer to a substantive discussion of the market model.
The key parameters of S 444 describe a relatively restrained rollout:
- a cap of up to eight sportsbook operators in the state
- establishing a sports betting commission that will be responsible for rules and oversight
At the same time, political risks remain significant. Governor Henry McMaster, who is in office through 2027, previously campaigned against gambling. Adding another layer was the story with a separate initiative to legalize casinos, which last week House Majority Leader Davey Hiott returned to the originating committee, effectively slowing the process.
South Dakota is discussing a different path via a direct vote by voters. Resolution SJR 504 предполагает, that in November the question of online betting could be put to a vote, and the online model itself will hinge on partnerships with casinos in Deadwood. This is a tie-in to existing infrastructure, since in-person betting in Deadwood has been allowed since 2020.
The weak point of this setup is that it inevitably redistributes market power in favor of already operating venues, and previous attempts to expand the industry met stiff resistance. The discussion here is more often not about whether betting is needed, but about who will become the gateway to the online segment.
Sweepstakes casinos in the crosshairs: from closing loopholes to racketeering provisions
In Maryland, senators are debating Senate Bill 112, aimed at banning sweepstakes casinos and closing enforcement gaps. The director of the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Agency, John Martin, said the regulator has the authority to send cease-and-desist letters, and such letters have already been sent, but loopholes remain.
The context heightens a sense of a familiar pattern. In 2025, the Senate had already passed a sweepstakes ban, but the House of Representatives did not take up the initiative at that time. This shows a typical problem with such bans, when political will in one chamber does not guarantee passage in the other, and operators gain time to adapt to new statutory language.
In Mississippi, a Senate committee advanced SB 2104 last week, which is also aimed at banning sweepstakes casinos. The state already has experience with an unsuccessful finalization of a similar measure: last year the Senate became the first in the U.S. to approve a ban, but the bill died in conference committee after the House of Representatives added provisions on online sports betting to the text.
Louisiana is taking an even tougher route through a criminal-law framework. Representative Brian Fontenot has pre-filed HB 53, which proposes expanding the list of predicate offenses for racketeering by including certain gambling offenses. The list includes gambling in public, gambling by computer, and gambling by electronic sweepstakes device.
This is a continuation of last year’s conflict around sweepstakes. At that time, the legislature passed a ban, but Governor Jeff Landry vetoed it, stating that the regulator already has sufficient authority. After that, the Louisiana Gaming Control Board sent out more than 40 cease-and-desist letters to illegal operators, including sweepstakes projects, which underscored the authorities’ reliance on enforcement.
The question of online-casino licensing remains open
Despite the fact that online casinos are legalized in only a few U.S. states, in practice the geography of gambling entertainment is much broader. Players use offshore sites in order to place bets. In practice, this means that they lack state-level legal protections, which is why it is so important to pay attention to whether an online casino has an international license. This information is обязательно indicated in the website footer.
In addition, license information can be found in online-casino reviews. We also received clarifying information from the authors of a site dedicated to the Aviatrix crash game, which, according to rankings, ranks among the most popular. They assured us that all Aviatrix casinos on their list have international-standard licenses. This fact is always confirmed through additional checks.
At the same time, the presence of an international license does not change the fact that at the level of most U.S. states, online casinos continue to remain illegal. At present, the question of legalizing online casinos remains unresolved in 43 states.
Targeted restrictions in existing markets, from credit cards to college sports betting
In Maine, the Senate Committee on Veterans and Legal Affairs advanced LD 2080, which bans funding of sportsbook accounts with credit cards. In the discussion, an amendment is being prepared to extend the same restriction logic to the recently approved online-casino market as well, reflecting the broader trend toward scrutiny of betting funding sources.
In parallel, legal tension remains around the legal structure for online casinos itself. A land-based casino in the state is challenging the law granting exclusivity to tribes, and this adds uncertainty to how quickly it will be possible to harmonize rules across different verticals.
In Virginia, Delegate Garrett McGuire introduced HB 1527 last week, proposing to allow bets on NCAA Division I games involving in-state teams, which are currently prohibited. However, the authorization is proposed to be traded for a higher fiscal burden: a 50% tax on revenue from such bets versus the current 15% rate, and funds would be directed to support college sports through the NCAA Division Sports Betting Fund.
The bill has an important caveat: it is contingent on the creation of the Virginia Gaming Commission, and the idea of a consolidated regulator is generally being advanced through the legislature. This makes the betting dispute part of a broader conversation about who will regulate the market and how.
Washington is also considering expansion, but within the tribal model. Lawmakers are discussing the possibility of allowing tribal casinos to partner with multiple operators on tribal lands, as well as revisiting the approach to bets on in-state teams while keeping the ban on player props on Washington athletes. Currently, in-person betting in tribal casinos and betting via apps tethered to a sportsbook located on the corresponding tribe’s land are allowed in the state, and it is precisely the constraints of this framework that are becoming the subject of discussion.
Alabama shifts the debate to rollout mechanics
In Alabama, Senator Merika Coleman intends to introduce an initiative that does not legalize gambling directly, but proposes a two-step model through a referendum and a constitutional amendment. If approved in the vote, the governor would be able to establish a gambling commission, and lawmakers would have the opportunity to set out the rules for the lottery, gambling, and sports betting.
Sources in the legislature, however, call the gambling topic unlikely to advance this year, which underscores the gap between political rhetoric and procedural reality. In 2024, a comprehensive bill passed the House of Representatives, but in the Senate it fell one vote short, and Governor Kay Ivey supports such proposals and in 2020 created a commission to study the issue.