Maryland iGaming SB 855: Ocean Downs Casino Fights Back

Elvis Blane

Crypto Casino

March 13, 2026

9 Views

Maryland Senator Ron Watson has introduced SB 855, a bill to legalize online casino gaming across the state, continuing a multi-year push that has so far failed to clear the legislature. The proposal has drawn immediate resistance from Ocean Downs Casino and Worcester County officials, who warn that iGaming legalization could cannibalize revenue at brick-and-mortar venues. Meanwhile, Virginia has shelved its own online gambling bill, HB 271, pushing any potential launch to 2027 at the earliest.

Sen. Ron Watson Introduces SB 855 to Legalize Maryland iCasino Gaming

What SB 855 Actually Proposes

Senator Ron Watson filed SB 855 during the 2025 Maryland legislative session, marking at least the third consecutive year that similar iGaming legislation has appeared before state lawmakers. The bill would authorize licensed online casino gaming, commonly called iCasino, allowing Maryland residents to legally wager on slots, table games, and other casino products through regulated digital platforms. Watson’s proposal mirrors the structure of bills introduced in prior sessions, suggesting a deliberate long-game strategy to build legislative familiarity with the concept.

The revenue framework in SB 855 allocates proceeds across three primary beneficiaries: Maryland’s public education fund, the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Agency, and state-run problem gambling initiatives. This three-way split is a standard political architecture designed to broaden support by tying iGaming revenue to popular public programs. States like New Jersey, which generated over $2.4 billion in online casino revenue in 2024 according to the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, use similar earmarking strategies to maintain public and legislative goodwill.[1]

Watson has not publicly disclosed projected annual revenue figures for Maryland under SB 855, but analysts tracking mid-Atlantic iGaming markets estimate Maryland could generate between $400 million and $700 million annually at maturity, based on comparable state populations and existing sports betting uptake. The Maryland Lottery reported $2.3 billion in total sales for fiscal year 2023, providing a baseline for understanding the state’s appetite for regulated gambling products.[1]

A Pattern of Repeated Attempts

The recurring introduction of iGaming legislation in Maryland reflects a national trend where state senators and delegates test the political waters annually, incrementally shifting the Overton window on online casino legalization. Pennsylvania legalized iGaming in 2017, Michigan followed in 2019, and Connecticut launched its market in 2021, each creating a neighboring-state revenue drain that pressures holdout legislatures to act. Maryland borders Pennsylvania directly, meaning Maryland residents can legally access Pennsylvania’s iCasino platforms while Maryland collects zero tax revenue from that activity.

SB 855’s repeated introduction without passage also signals that Watson lacks the committee votes to advance the bill quickly. The Maryland General Assembly’s 2025 session runs through April 7, 2025, giving the bill a narrow window to move through the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee before the session closes.[1]

Ocean Downs Casino and Worcester County Push Back Hard on SB 855

Who Is Opposing the Bill and Why

Ocean Downs Casino, a slots-and-table-games facility located in Berlin, Maryland, has emerged as the most vocal institutional opponent of SB 855. Worcester County officials have aligned with the casino’s position, arguing that online gaming would pull discretionary gambling dollars away from physical venues and reduce the local tax base that funds county services. Ocean Downs operates under a license issued by the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Agency and employs hundreds of workers in a coastal county where tourism and hospitality dominate the economy.

The core economic argument from opponents is substitution: every dollar a Maryland resident spends on a licensed iCasino platform is a dollar not spent at a physical casino floor. Academic research on this question is mixed. A 2023 study published by the American Gaming Association found that states with both retail and online casino operations saw retail revenue remain stable or grow slightly in the first three years post-iGaming launch, suggesting complementary rather than cannibalistic dynamics.[1] Ocean Downs and Worcester County officials dispute this framing, pointing to their specific geographic and demographic circumstances as distinct from larger urban casino markets.

Worcester County’s opposition carries political weight because the county’s delegation in Annapolis can influence committee dynamics, particularly in the Senate Finance Committee where gambling bills often stall. Local government opposition to iGaming is not unique to Maryland: similar resistance from regional casino operators delayed online gaming legislation in Illinois and New York for years before broader coalitions overcame it.

The Broader Stakeholder Divide in Maryland

Maryland currently operates six licensed casinos, including MGM National Harbor, Live! Casino and Hotel, and Horseshoe Baltimore, in addition to Ocean Downs. Larger operators like MGM have historically taken more nuanced positions on iGaming, recognizing that a statewide online platform could extend their brand reach to customers who never visit a physical property. This creates a split within the Maryland casino industry itself, with smaller regional venues bearing disproportionate risk from online competition.

Problem gambling advocacy groups in Maryland have generally supported iGaming legalization when bills include mandatory responsible gambling funding, as SB 855 does. The Maryland Center of Excellence on Problem Gambling, based at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, has noted that regulated online platforms offer more granular player data for early intervention than cash-based retail gambling.[1] That argument has not yet overcome the economic objections from Ocean Downs and Worcester County.

State iGaming Legalization: Where the U.S. Stands in 2025

Virginia’s decision to delay HB 271 until the 2027 legislative session is a significant data point for anyone tracking East Coast iGaming expansion. The Virginia bill proposed a 20% tax rate on adjusted gross revenue, a relatively operator-friendly rate compared to Pennsylvania’s 54% slots tax that has constrained platform diversity in that state.[1] Virginia lawmakers cited unresolved questions about market structure, licensing fees, and the impact on the state’s five existing brick-and-mortar casino projects, several of which only recently opened.

The national count of legal iCasino states remains at seven as of early 2025: New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Delaware, West Virginia, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. A coalition of those states generated a combined $7.87 billion in online casino gross gaming revenue in 2024, according to industry tracker Eilers and Krejcik Gaming, representing 34% year-over-year growth.[1] That growth rate is precisely the number that lobbyists for iGaming legalization wave in front of state budget committees when arguing Maryland is leaving money on the table.

Maryland’s sports betting market, which launched in December 2022, generated approximately $400 million in handle during its first full calendar year, demonstrating that Maryland residents actively use regulated online gambling products when available. Sports betting handle is not directly comparable to iCasino revenue, but it establishes proof of digital gambling demand in the state. That demand currently flows to unlicensed offshore platforms for casino-style games, generating zero Maryland tax revenue and zero consumer protections for players.

The political calculus in Annapolis involves balancing that revenue opportunity against the organized opposition of regional casino operators who hold significant lobbying influence. Ocean Downs and similar venues are not passive actors: they contribute to political campaigns, employ local workers, and generate county-level tax revenue that elected officials depend on. Watson’s SB 855 must navigate that entrenched resistance before it can reach a floor vote.[1]

What Maryland and Virginia Gambling Delays Mean for Privacy-Focused Players

For players who use Monero and privacy-first crypto casinos, the stalled progress of iGaming legislation in Maryland and Virginia is a direct market signal. Every month that regulated online casino options remain unavailable in these states, residents who want to play online either abstain or turn to offshore platforms that accept cryptocurrency, including privacy coins like XMR. That is not a hypothetical: it is the documented behavior pattern in every state where retail gambling exists but online casino play remains illegal.

The regulatory gap matters because it defines the operating environment for privacy-focused gambling platforms. Maryland has a population of approximately 6.2 million people, and Virginia adds another 8.7 million, totaling nearly 15 million residents in two adjacent states where licensed iCasino play is currently unavailable. Players in those states who prioritize financial privacy, transaction anonymity, and freedom from surveillance-heavy KYC processes have limited regulated options, which shapes where they direct their activity.

The Virginia proposal’s 20% tax rate on adjusted gross revenue, if eventually enacted, would set a pricing floor that regulated operators must build into their product economics. Privacy coin casinos operating outside that framework face a different cost structure entirely, which is one reason the regulatory and unregulated markets will continue to coexist regardless of what Maryland or Virginia legislators decide in 2025 or 2027.

Key Takeaways

• Senator Ron Watson introduced SB 855 in the 2025 Maryland legislative session to legalize iCasino gaming, at least the third consecutive year a similar bill has been filed.
• SB 855 directs revenue to Maryland public education, the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Agency, and state problem gambling programs.
• Ocean Downs Casino in Berlin, Maryland, and Worcester County officials formally oppose SB 855, citing potential cannibalization of physical casino revenue.
• Virginia’s online casino bill, HB 271, has been delayed until the 2027 legislative session, with a proposed 20% tax rate on adjusted gross revenue still on the table.
• Seven U.S. states currently operate legal iCasino markets, generating a combined $7.87 billion in gross gaming revenue in 2024, up 34% year-over-year.
• Maryland’s 2025 legislative session closes April 7, 2025, leaving SB 855 a narrow window to advance through committee before the session ends.
• Pennsylvania, which borders Maryland directly, generated over $2.4 billion in online casino revenue in 2024, representing a direct cross-border revenue drain on Maryland’s treasury.

Frequently Asked Questions

The Bottom Line

Maryland’s SB 855 faces the same structural obstacle that has blocked iGaming legislation in the state for multiple consecutive sessions: organized opposition from regional casino operators who carry disproportionate political weight relative to their market size. Ocean Downs Casino and Worcester County represent a small fraction of Maryland’s total gaming revenue, but their geographic concentration and local employment footprint give their opposition outsized legislative leverage. Watson’s bill will need either a significant shift in committee composition or a compelling new revenue argument to break the pattern.

Virginia’s decision to push HB 271 to 2027 removes a potential regional catalyst that might have pressured Maryland to act. When neighboring states move simultaneously, the competitive revenue argument becomes harder for holdout legislators to ignore. With Virginia now on pause, Maryland’s iGaming advocates lose that external pressure point for at least two more years.

The longer both states wait, the more their residents route gambling activity through channels that collect no state tax, offer no consumer protections, and answer to no Maryland or Virginia regulator. That is the real cost of inaction, and it grows by approximately $20 million per month based on estimated cross-border leakage to Pennsylvania alone. Watson will be back with another bill next session if SB 855 fails. The question is whether the math eventually becomes too large for Annapolis to ignore.

Sources

1. Covers.com – Source reporting on Maryland SB 855, Ocean Downs Casino opposition, Virginia HB 271 delay, and state iGaming revenue data cited throughout this article.