Level 2, ‘The Fort’, HardRocks Business Park, Burmarrad Road, Naxxar, NXR 6345
Crypto Casino is an independent platform providing unbiased information about online crypto casinos, games, and bonuses. We are not owned or operated by any gambling provider. All reviews, rankings, and guides are written by our expert team based on honest analysis and the latest available data.
Copyright©Crypto.Casino Ltd. 2026. All Rights Reserved
Maine becomes the 8th US state to legalize online casinos under a tribal-exclusive model. Could this signal the next phase of US iGaming expansion?
Jan 19, 2026
Maine has just become the 8th state in the United States to legalize real money online casinos, but under some unique tribal-exclusive structures. After much struggle and debate, the Maine Legislature passed LD1164, officially known as An Act to Create Economic Opportunity for the Wabanaki Nations Through Internet Gaming, enacted into law January 11th, 2026 as Public Law Chapter 538.
What once was an untapped market might soon be opening up for online casino operators, with some caveats. The US has been notorious in the iGaming world for having such a large potential playerbase with no countrywide outlets. A part of that notoriety comes from the Supreme Court’s rulings over the past couple of decades, letting the individual states determine whether or not they permit online and regulated casinos.
Maine could represent a new wave of legalization for iGaming in the US market, but the state-by-state basis could represent major roadblocks for operators. Many US players have resorted to offshore casinos, even if using them remains legally cloudy. On the other side of the world, the EU and the UK have let regulated iGaming and casinos serve their players.
Is the US going to catch up?
The US is known for having deep ties to gambling over its history. British colonies in Virginia hosted betting on horse racing, usually reserved for the wealthy, as early as the 1600s. Lotteries were used as sources of fundraising well before the American Revolution. New Orleans, Louisiana is believed to be the birthplace of modern poker, spreading throughout the Mississippi River over the 1800s. The Western expansion led to a proliferation of gambling houses across territories in the WIld West.
One might assume with all of these ties the US has always been kind to the gambler, but not so.
The game has changed over the 400 years since gambling landed in the colonies. While US federal law permits gambling, each state has the power to approach legalization on their own terms, and has done so to wildly different degrees. While Nevada remains the gambling capital of the US, Utah has banned any form of it, showing just how wide the legal spectrum really is.
As it stands, there is no federal law legalizing iGaming and online casinos; that too remains up to each state. However, there are two acts that most would defer to for clarifying the legality:
The Wire Act of 1961
The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) of 2006.
The Wire Act was passed intentionally to prevent gambling, namely sportsbetting, across intrastate lines using wire communications, later expanded to include other forms of transmission. But this Act would see definitions and scope shift and change every few years.
In 2002, the Department of Justice told the state of Nevada that the Act “prohibits gambling over the Internet, including casino-style gambling”. Confusingly, that same year the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed “In plain language [the Act] does not prohibit Internet gambling on a game of chance”. The DOJ then decided, in conjunction with the Office of Legal Counsel, that it didn’t apply to gambling outside of a “sporting event or contest” in 2011.
Debate between courts would rage over the 2010s, with the Office going back on its prior opinion to reinclude other forms of gambling in 2018. The difference in legal opinion between the federal and state courts is still being argued well into the 2020s.
The UIGEA of 2006 isn’t without its own history and controversy. Not targeting players necessarily, the act functionally prohibits any online operator, interstate or offshore, from knowingly accepting any form of real money payment from a player not allowed to legally participate in a “game of chance” (gamble or place bets) within their jurisdiction.
However, the Act does not cover offshore payment processors, leading to operators and players using them as intermediaries to circumvent the Act in effect. Naturally, there were claims that the Act did little to actually protect players and only moved them to illegal, unregulated sites offshore.
Maybe the UIGEA’s biggest impact occurred on April 15th, 2011, when the DOJ seized the domains of online poker sites PokerStars, Full Tilt, and Absolute Poker, a day living in poker infamy as “Black Friday”.
The 11 total defendants, including site founders and US payment processors, were criminally charged with violating the act while committing bank fraud and money laundering through customers’ funds. The poker boom that started with Chris Moneymaker’s legendary Main Event win in the 2003 World Series of Poker broadcast to millions on ESPN had crashed overnight. The US made up the majority of poker sites’ player bases, with accounts frozen by legal authorities.
Online poker operators left the US market quickly after paying settlements, or shutting down. ESPN ended its poker related advertising and broadcasting. Today PokerStars in the US only operates New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Full Tilt survived as well, but doesn’t operate in any US state.
These two acts offer only some precedent to follow, but the UIGEA’s application is still dependent on where the player’s transaction comes from, even if it does lay the groundwork to push states towards formal regulation. The Wire Act's own applicability is still up in the air, not helped by the rise of sportsbooks and prediction markets.
Neither of the Acts do anything to outright federally legalize online gambling, it still remains firmly in the power of the states. They typically consider their approach to gambling on some key considerations
Constitutional rules determining how bills are passed
Tribal gaming policies that give exclusivity and sovereignty.
Traditional gambling stakeholders like landbased casinos, racetracks, and state-run lotteries.
Political Risk Tolerance from lawmakers
Enforcement posture from authorities
In effect, these different considerations vary state to state, making it difficult to summarize iGaming in the US as something other than complex.
Besides letting Maine become one of the few states to legalize online casinos, it does so specifically by authorizing the Wabanaki Nations to operate and provide games, namely anything under the traditional casino umbrella, including slots, poker, and table games like roulette, blackjack, and baccarat.
The Nations—consisting of Penobscot Nation, Passamaquoddy Tribe, Mi’kmaq Nation, and Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians—have exclusivity to operate up to four different sites each and enter a contract with a gaming software supplier.
The bill also introduces casino licensing requirements, including rules on eligibility, fees, software suppliers, and equipment. The Gambling Control Unit will be expected to implement rules for online gambling surrounding game types, security, player protection, and advertising restrictions. 18% of adjusted gross revenue from online gambling is expected to help fund social welfare programs at the state level while also covering some costs of the Gambling Control Unit.
Of course, only players actively within the state of Maine can place bets and must be 21+.
Make no mistake: this bill sounds an awful lot like legislation that would pass, or already has, in Europe.
The Wabanaki’s exclusivity highlights a common starting point for backlash: market control.
The Bill’s title echoes Maine Governor Janet Mills’ statement:
I considered this bill carefully, and while I have concerns about the impacts of gambling on public health, I believe that this new form of gambling should be regulated, and I am confident that Maine's Gambling Control Unit will develop responsible rules and standards to hold providers of this new form of gambling accountable while ensuring that Maine's tribes benefit from its operations. It has always been my strong desire to work with Tribal leaders to improve the lives and livelihoods of the Wabanaki Nations, and it is my hope that this new revenue will do just that.
While the Tribes are happy, not everyone else is.
In the lead up to the bill’s passing The Maine Gaming Control Board chairman, Steve Silver, argued that the tribes’ exclusivity would lead to job loss if non-tribal Oxford and Hollywood casinos weren’t cut in. In his testimony he even goes so far to say “If LD 1164 moves forward with a Tribal monopoly plan, it should include a relief fund for the nearly 400 employees likely to be affected by the drop in land-based casino revenue”.
Among other contentions, including issues with low tax rates and loss in state revenue, he emphasizes the problem of addiction. There’s been an increase in recent years, as he says “In 2022 the Gambling Control Board recorded 133 Mainers who self-excluded from casino gambling prior to the legalization of sports wagering. Currently, there are 475 self-excluded patrons. That is a 275% increase in just three years. iGaming will further exacerbate this problem.”
Silver isn’t alone in his complaints. A 500 person survey from the National Association Against iGaming conducted in December 2025 found that 64% of Maine’s general election voters were against legalized iGaming, citing issues of underage gambling and potentials for an increase in gambling addiction. While Governor Mills seems to have taken those risks into consideration, others remain concerned.
Big players feel threatened, too, as Michael Ventre, Senior Manager of State Management Relations for Fanduel Group Inc, argued the increased potential for a monopoly could occur with the passing of the bill. In his own March testimony, he points out that
As written, this bill would mirror Maine’s existing online sports betting framework that has limited the market to just two operators despite the ability to have up to four. DraftKings has partnered with the Passamaquoddy Tribe, and Caesar’s has partnered with the Penobscot, Maliseet, and Micmac Tribes. One operator currently has around 90% of the entirety of the state’s market share. The lack of legitimate choice for the consumer can encourage individuals to seek alternative methods outside of the regulated marketplace.
Clearly, Maine’s model and framework has ruffled some feathers. With gambling addiction on the rise, there’s a serious question as to whether or not Maine’s governor was sincere about her thought process and considerations, or if stakeholders pushed hard enough to move the needle. After all, it was assumed that she would veto the bill in the lead up due to a history of reluctance towards passing gambling regulation. In this case, she didn’t outright sign it, only allowed it to pass after the start of the new session.
Maine is potentially representing the first in the next wave of states that will look to legalize online casinos in the near future, or at the very least consider it.
Virginia’s HB161 was introduced by Marcus Simon to the House of Delegates on January 14th. It would legalize online casinos while also prohibiting sweepstakes games run by unlicensed operators. Importantly, it also sets up a framework for licensing operators. Delegate Paul Krizek also introduced HB271 that same day, which would set up the Virginia Gaming Commission (VGO) to oversee all forms of gambling alongside the Virginia Lottery Board (VLB). This is carrying forward the momentum from last year as previous bills were introduced.
New York has had a tenuous history with iGaming, but it's back on the agenda. S2614 has been introduced and reintroduced since early 2025 by Senator Joseph P. Addabbo, but could finally see passing, leading to online casinos seeing licensing and legitimacy. This will be the fourth year in a row that he has introduced a bill to legalize online casinos and other forms of iGaming.
Now with companion bill A06027, sponsored by Assemblyperson Carrie Woerner, the push might be enough to put iGaming on a legal playing field. The New York State Gaming Commission already spent last year giving brick and mortar casino licenses to Bally’s, Resorts World, and Hard Rock.
Illinois’ Senator Cristina Castro’s SB 1963 and Rep. Edgar Gonzalez’s HB 3080 proposed in February of 2025 would work together to establish the Internet Gaming Act, allowing for online licensed casinos. The proposed legislation focuses on making a framework for player protection and licensing requirements. Illinois gamblers still have to deal with an increase in tax rates, particularly in sportsbetting, due to the state needing revenue to solve budget concerns. If online casinos would be subject to the same rates, that could limit potential growth.
Massachusetts is still in the picture as well with Bill H.4431 introduced by Representative David K. Muradian last August. This comes just two years after Massachusetts legalized online sportsbetting, showing just how quick lawmakers are developing policy.
Ohio currently permits sweepstakes casinos, but HB298 by House Finance Committee Chair Brian Stewart would put an end to that and replace them with real money casinos. Co-sponsor Marilyn John testified that Ohio players spend 6 billion on iGaming, with 85% of that played illegally. The proposed bill, introduced in the last week of December, would set up a 50 million USD fee for initial licensing, with 10 million for an annual renewal, with the Ohio Casino Control Commission acting as the primary gaming authority. That same week, Senator Nathan H.Manning introduced a separate bill, SB197, with overlap in its objectives. HB298 and SB197 would also tax game revenue at 28% and 19%, respectively, with an estimate for 400 to 800 million USD in revenue for Ohio.
Maine might be a signal, but it might not be the model for other states to follow. Maine is in a special position because the bill aligns specifically with tribal politics influencing state gambling laws.
While Native American tribes have had influence over some states gaming policies, they also don’t hold the same weight in others. Tribes aren’t the only stakeholders lawmakers have to consider: brick and mortar casinos, advocacy groups, and lobbyists could stymie iGaming potential.
States also have their own process for actually debating and passing bills, making it unlikely for all States to pass iGaming bills even within a year of each other. Ongoing debates with similar themes of addiction, risk, responsible gaming, and so on will definitely stress the political tolerance of politicians and their voterbases. Even sportsbetting remains contentious in the states that have legalized it. iGaming, an even more unproven ground in the US, will likely be subject to those same debates.
It’s easy to overspeculate why legalizing iGaming has become a serious discussion for lawmakers, but there are some signs.
The one most appealing to lawmakers is the revenue. A multibillion dollar industry is ripe for taxation. According to the American Gaming Association, gaming revenue, in all of its forms, broke records with a total of 15.91 billion USD across the US. iGaming and online casinos specifically made 8.78 billion USD in revenue over the course of 2025, breaking 2024’s number. Not to mention, iGaming made a further 1.54 billion in tax revenue across the 7 states that have legalized online casinos.
Dollar signs speak. At the very least, online casinos could help offer budget relief and funding, as legalized states already do so. Offshore casinos are typically free from any taxation that states would usually impose on such businesses. Not even counting in market potential from operators, the taxation alone would be enough to make politicians start pushing more legislation, as we’ve seen already in recent years.
You can’t ignore the noise sportsbetting has made since the US Supreme Court ended a 40 year federal ban in 2018. Yes, its legality remains a state-by-state basis, but the industry is constantly recording increasing profits year to year, with marketing and advertising populating commercial breaks and internet pages. You’d be hard pressed to find a sportshow that doesn’t mention the spread and player props just before the game.
Gambling, in at least one form, is more socially acceptable and accessible than it's ever been before, all with the ease of placing bets on your phone from your couch. Legislators, and stakeholders, could see online casinos as the next natural step.
Regulating online casinos might also be the best solution for mitigating addiction risk. Just because gambling has become more socially acceptable does not mean it is free from potential social problems. Pennsylvania isn’t the only state recording an increase in gambling addiction. From 2018 to 2025, US internet searches looking for help with gambling addiction increased by 23%, starting the same year sports betting was legalized. This is in spite of the fact that regulated gambling sites and outlets have responsible gambling tools.
The ease of access and use for online casinos and sportsbooks, just a click away on your phone, has made for an increase in addiction potential. Keeping in mind that many offshore casinos may not even offer such tools, there’s potential that addiction numbers could be even larger. Lawmakers might be forced to play their hand by offering regulated casinos that can actually monitor for addictive behavior.
If the concerns from Maine’s passing of LD1164 are anything to go by, it’s going to be a long legal road for even the most optimistic states before online casinos become available. Gambling addiction and underage access remain at the forefront of public health and risk.
The Council on Compulsive Gambling of Pennsylvania recorded more than 2,700 calls on its problem gambling hotline last November, a record breaking number. Pennsylvania is one of the few states with legalized and regulated online gambling, and one of the largest markets— Sportsbooks collectively spent 37 million USD on Pennsylvania alone in 2025. Online casinos operating in the state made over 600 million in revenue this past year.
In other states, regulators are applying more pressure to offshore and sweepstakes casinos. In August, The Arizona Department of Gaming sent 4 cease and desist letters to offshore operators, citing violations of gaming laws including Promotion of Gambling, Illegal Control of an Enterprise, and Money Laundering, all considered felonies under Arizona state law. This past December, The Michigan Gaming Control Board issued 12 cease and desist letters to offshore operators, also citing violations of state laws.
These crackdowns could be indicative of the tight regulatory limitations operators will have to navigate through, even under legal frameworks.
That doesn’t take away the fact that iGaming revenue is growing. If over 8 billion in revenue is from seven states, legislators have to be considering what that number would look like with all 50. On the other end, taxation and fees could push operators and players alike away from the potential legal path they would have to follow. All bills seek to levy taxes as a source of revenue to solve budget problems and fund state programs. Operators are going to have to consider if the gamble is worth it in the long run before they even apply for licensing.
You might have noticed that there’s some recurring signs for iGaming coming into law where it's a center of debate. Here are some things to look out for in your own state.
A bill for iGaming isn’t just filed, it has a committee assignment, hearing notice, amendments, fiscal notices, or a substitute bill. That is a big indicator of lawmakers putting momentum into legislation.
Session calendars should show when the bill is being debated on the floor with deadlines, votes, and if there are budget concerns surrounding it.
Stakeholders aren’t openly fighting over legalization. Market control is a key part of the debate between tribes, commercial operators, sportsbooks, and racetracks. If all parties are satisfied, even on the surface, the path to legalization has a lot less hurdles.
Clear licensing requirements and procedures show a solid foundation for future business and regulation. Bills that have a real chance to become law should cover eligibility, how many brands licensing covers, and software/site rules surrounding B2B services and contracts.
If the state already has a gaming authority in place, that takes out a lot of overhead and setup concern. Longstanding regulators have better resources to address issues and violations.
If law enforcement is putting pressure on offshore casinos, that could indicate a state is making room for licensed casinos while removing confusion on whether an online casino is operating legally or not, drawing a clear line in the sand for players.
Responsible and safer gambling tools in the bill’s language help lawmakers and voters see the bill as something serious, and not a cash grab at the expense of public health. Deposit limits, advertising restrictions, and exclusion policies tackle a lot of potential objections when a bill uses them.
The “why now” question becomes more apparent in state news and debates. The states showing clear interest in legal iGaming have budget issues that need to be addressed sooner rather than later, and recognize online casinos for their tax revenue potential. Plus, the UIEGA is still putting the ball in their court. If they want iGaming, they need to set the framework clearly.
It’s very well possible that these bills from various states will come to pass in the next year or two. Will they follow Maine’s path towards legalization? Probably not by completely mirroring it, but it does illustrate the debates and process of legalizing a market like iGaming quite well. There is as much as much to risk as there is to gain, depending on who you ask. The complexity of the future mirrors the complexity of the past for US gamblers.
We’ll be keeping a close eye on any updates for US players, so be sure to check back for updates on our watchlist.
