Maine has stumbled into one of the most intense debates in U.S. gambling policy, namely whether to allow full scale online casino gaming, often called iGaming, and who should control it if it happens at all. At the center is LD 1164, a bill that would give the Wabanaki Nations exclusive rights to run online casino platforms in the state. Tribal leaders see it as a long overdue economic opportunity, while regulators and commercial casinos see serious risks to jobs, tax revenue, and public health.
Voters Are Clearly Not Sold on iGaming
A recent statewide survey of 500 likely Maine voters shows that public opinion is not just skeptical of iGaming, it is deeply negative. Around two thirds of respondents oppose legalizing online casinos, and nearly half say they are strongly opposed, not just mildly against. Only a small minority supports legalization.
What really stands out is how bipartisan the opposition is. Majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents all line up against online casinos, with independents registering some of the highest opposition levels. When respondents were shown arguments both for and against iGaming, opposition strengthened and support weakened further, which suggests that additional information pushes voters away from the idea rather than toward it.
The poll also has clear implications for legislators. Roughly half of those surveyed say they would be less likely to vote for a lawmaker who supports iGaming once they have heard both sides. In a small state with close races, that is exactly the kind of finding that will make elected officials nervous about backing LD 1164.
When asked to rank concerns, two themes dominated. First, many are worried about the industry’s inability, or unwillingness, to reliably keep minors off online platforms. Second, a large share fear that easy, always available phone based gambling will fuel more addiction and problem gambling.
Those worries are already grounded in Maine’s own experience. After online sports betting went live, the number of residents who self excluded from casino gambling jumped several fold in just a few years, even before online casinos entered the picture.
What LD 1164 Would Actually Do
LD 1164 is not a general purpose iGaming bill. It is tightly structured around the state’s four federally recognized tribes, the Passamaquoddy Tribe, Penobscot Nation, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, and Mi’kmaq Nation, and it would give them exclusive rights to offer online casino games.
In practice, that means each tribe could license a single online casino platform, typically by partnering with a national operator, and players anywhere in Maine could access online slots, table games, and other casino offerings through mobile apps and websites. The state would collect a mid range tax on gross iGaming receipts, with projections in the low single digit millions of dollars annually once the market matures.
Projected revenue is not enormous in the context of an entire state budget, but the bill earmarks these funds for politically attractive uses, such as addiction treatment, public health initiatives, veterans’ services, school facilities, and housing support. That framing lets supporters pitch iGaming as a targeted funding source for social programs rather than just a new gambling product.
This approach builds directly on Maine’s 2022 law that granted the Wabanaki Nations exclusive rights to online sports betting. That earlier bill followed lengthy negotiations and was sold as a historic step toward improving tribal state relations and delivering meaningful economic opportunity to tribes that had long been shut out of casino development under an unusual legal structure dating back to the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act.
Supporters of LD 1164 argue that the technical and regulatory infrastructure is already in place from online sports betting, that iGaming would allow tribes to diversify their revenue base beyond in person gaming and federal funding, and that the exclusivity mirrors what the state already did with online sports wagering and is consistent with Maine’s effort to correct past inequities.
Opponents agree that the bill is historic, but not in a good way. They describe it as the largest single expansion of gambling in Maine’s history, with most of the social risk concentrated on Maine residents and most of the economic upside flowing to a narrow set of tribal operator partnerships.
Why the Gambling Control Board Wants a Veto
The Maine Gambling Control Board has taken an unusually public and forceful stance against LD 1164. In a unanimous vote, it recommended that Governor Janet Mills veto the bill, and the board’s chair sent a detailed letter laying out why.
Three main concerns dominate the board’s objections.
-
Monopoly and fairness
LD 1164 excludes Oxford Casino and Hollywood Casino, Maine’s two existing commercial casinos, from participating in the online market. Those properties together employ close to a thousand people. Internal estimates from the casinos suggest that well over a hundred jobs could be lost at Oxford alone if online casinos launch without giving them any way to compete.In other states, such as New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, brick and mortar casinos were given their own iGaming licenses or partnerships, so any cannibalization of in person revenue was at least partially offset by new online revenue streams. Maine’s model, by contrast, would expose commercial casinos to all downside and no upside, which from the board’s perspective is a policy choice rather than a technical requirement and one that directly threatens local employment.
-
Public health and problem gambling
The board highlights data from both Maine and other states that show expanded access to online gambling is associated with sharp increases in problem gambling indicators. In Maine, self exclusion numbers jumped dramatically after online sports betting launched, even before online casino games entered the picture. Other states that legalized iGaming have reported large spikes in calls to problem gambling helplines, especially among younger adults who favor online products.Research in the broader health literature consistently finds that online gambling is more strongly associated with harmful gambling behavior than traditional in person casino visits, largely because of speed of play, constant availability, and the ability to gamble in private. These factors amplify risk, particularly for people with underlying vulnerabilities or limited financial buffers.
-
Regulatory capacity and enforcement
Regulators worry that layering full casino functionality on top of sports betting will stretch oversight capacity. Age verification systems, anti money laundering tools, and responsible gambling controls all become more complex in a multi vertical platform that runs day and night.The board has already warned Maine residents that no online casino or sweeps style platform currently operating is licensed in the state, and it has had to field complaints from people who lost money on unregulated sites and then discovered the state could not intervene. In the board’s view, pushing ahead with a full iGaming market increases both regulatory complexity and consumer expectations at exactly the moment Maine is still trying to get its arms around illegal operators.
Given this backdrop, the board’s official recommendation is straightforward, better to veto LD 1164 now than rush into an online casino landscape the state may not be ready to manage.
Governor Mills’ Mixed Record on Gambling
Governor Janet Mills is an unusually pivotal figure here, and her past decisions on gambling issues offer clues, but not a clear prediction.
On one side, she was initially skeptical about sports betting and delayed action on earlier proposals, and she vetoed past efforts that would have significantly expanded tribal casino ownership rights. On the other hand, she ultimately signed the 2022 law granting tribes exclusive control over online sports betting, after long negotiations that she framed as part of a broader reset in tribal state relations. That bill was described as historic not just for gaming but also for its tax relief provisions for tribal members and formalized collaboration process with tribal governments.
Mills now faces a similar choice, but the stakes are higher. Sports betting was sold partly as a way to bring already popular behavior into a regulated environment, whereas full iGaming is a different animal, with higher stakes, faster play, and a more direct overlap with existing brick and mortar casinos.
Politically, she has at least three options. She could sign LD 1164 and lean into the tribal economic development narrative while emphasizing earmarks for addiction treatment and social programs. She could veto the bill, citing public opposition, the control board’s recommendation, and concerns about jobs and harm. Or she could allow the bill to become law without her signature, signaling reservations while not directly blocking the Legislature’s will.
Complicating matters further, Maine is simultaneously advancing LD 2007, a bill to crack down on unregulated sweepstakes casinos that use dual currency loopholes to mimic online casinos without a license. That measure would impose heavy fines on sweeps operators and direct the money to an addiction prevention and treatment fund. It is hard to argue that unregulated online casinos are dangerous while saying regulated online casinos will be harmless, so Mills has to square those messages in whatever she decides.
The National iGaming Picture, Big Money, Uneven Opinions
To understand Maine’s fight, it helps to see where iGaming already exists and what it looks like on the ground.
Only a handful of states currently offer full fledged online casino gaming, namely New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, West Virginia, Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island. Despite the small roster, the revenue is massive, with these states together generating many billions of dollars in iGaming gross revenue annually and the bulk coming from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Those three account for the vast majority of U.S. online casino revenue, and they each treat iGaming as a significant contributor to tax collections.
Tax structures differ. Pennsylvania imposes a very high rate on online slots, capturing a large share of operator revenue for state programs, while New Jersey uses a more moderate rate but has a long standing, mature market, and Michigan and Connecticut sit somewhere in the middle. Most states channel at least part of their iGaming tax take into visible priorities, such as property tax relief, education funding, veterans’ homes, community development authorities, or dedicated problem gambling efforts.
At the same time, public attitudes are mixed. States that rushed into sports betting have started to see growing worry about addiction, especially among younger adults and those using mobile apps. Surveys and academic studies consistently find that the vast majority of online gamblers lose money over time, that helpline calls and searches related to gambling addiction increase after legalization, and that lower income individuals are more likely to cross into harmful spending territory.
This tension, with big, easily measurable tax revenue on one side and harder to quantify social costs on the other, runs through every legislative debate about expanding iGaming.
Does iGaming Cannibalize Physical Casinos?
One of the most hotly debated questions is whether online casinos simply cannibalize brick and mortar gambling or whether they mostly tap new demand and even support physical properties.
Evidence points in both directions. Some economic studies, particularly those commissioned in states like Maryland, find that iGaming states saw in person casino revenue fall while non iGaming states saw modest growth over the same period. Those analyses argue that the differential is too large to be explained by macroeconomic trends alone and therefore likely reflects customers shifting their spending online.
Other research, including industry backed work, suggests that iGaming can actually boost overall casino revenue, especially when physical properties hold iGaming licenses themselves. Operators report that players who use both channels tend to visit brick and mortar casinos more often, not less, and that loyalty programs awarding in person perks for online play help drive traffic back to physical venues.
The truth probably depends heavily on structure. In states where existing casinos control or share in online licenses, any cannibalization may be offset or even outweighed by new revenue streams and increased engagement from omnichannel players. In states where physical casinos are excluded from iGaming, as LD 1164 would do in Maine, brick and mortar operators face all of the downside of competition without any of the upside of participation.
This is why Oxford Casino and Hollywood Casino are loudly opposed to LD 1164 specifically, not just to iGaming in the abstract. If the state were to license them for online operations or require tribal operators to partner with them, their stance might soften, but as written, the bill asks them to accept potential double digit revenue declines and job cuts while watching a new online market grow around them.
A Growing Crackdown on Unregulated Sweepstakes Casinos
While states such as Maine, Illinois, and New York wrestle with whether and how to legalize regulated iGaming, another fight has been unfolding in parallel, namely the effort to shut down unregulated sweepstakes casinos that mimic online casinos but claim to operate outside gambling laws.
These platforms typically use a dual currency model. Players buy one kind of coin for fun play and receive another type that can be redeemed for cash prizes, and operators argue that because the redeemable currency is free, they are running promotions rather than gambling. Regulators and attorneys general increasingly disagree.
Over the last year or two, multiple states have passed laws explicitly banning online sweepstakes casinos and similar dual currency setups, sent cease and desist letters to major operators, forcing them to exit those markets, and framed the crackdown as both consumer protection and a way to protect regulated gambling channels, such as state lotteries and licensed casinos, from unlicensed competitors.
Maine’s LD 2007 fits squarely into this pattern, with steep fines and proceeds directed into a gambling addiction fund. Taken together with LD 1164, it underscores the state’s dilemma, as residents are already gambling online, often on unregulated sites, so policymakers must decide whether to replace those with a legal, taxed, and monitored system or to block as much online gambling as possible.
Organized Opposition, Who Is Pushing Back on iGaming?
Maine’s public debate is heavily influenced by an organized national campaign against iGaming expansion, led by a coalition that represents brick and mortar casino interests and allied groups that worry about job losses, lost local tax revenue, and social harm if online casinos spread.
This coalition commissions polling like the Maine survey to highlight public resistance, emphasizes statistics about problem gambling, especially among online users, and argues that state finances and local communities are better served by in person casinos that support thousands of jobs, hospitality districts, and tourism.
Its messaging in Maine centers on three claims. First, online casinos are uniquely addictive and strongly linked to problem gambling, second, the economic benefits of iGaming are overstated and concentrated in a small number of operators while the broader local economy suffers, and third, voters across the political spectrum do not want online casinos and will punish politicians who support them.
Supporters of iGaming and tribal leaders counter that many of these messages come from companies that simply want to protect their existing casino monopolies and are less concerned about the underlying social issues than about competition. They point out that the same commercial casinos often enthusiastically support online sports betting, crypto betting or other digital products when they control them, but oppose iGaming when they stand to lose market share to new entrants.
In Maine, that framing battle, protecting communities versus protecting market share, sits just below the surface of nearly every public statement about LD 1164.
