Maine has legalised online casinos. It is now setting up the framework for future growth and management of responsible gambling practices.
The state of Maine has made a bold step in the world of online gambling. Moving from a state that has embraced sports betting to one of the few to allow online casinos, at the head of this resides its new framework. This is its regulatory declaration regarding the operation of websites, slots, and table games. Amongst these are varied stakeholders, making it a case study for how other US states may introduce their own online casinos.
A changing model for online casinos
In 2026, Maine became the eighth state to allow online casinos. This followed a growing global trend, in which online casinos are being legalised and enforced because of the taxable revenue they can bring. Operators like Jackpot City South Africa are now taking the excellent game selections and UX built up in Europe, Asia and the US, exporting it to new markets. This means the global online casino sector is projected to be worth around US$655.31bn by the end of the year.
Maine is interesting in this patchwork of world laws, as it provides a framework on which to address how US states define their online casino access. Governor Janet Mills had previously opposed the plans, mainly due to the harm it could cause to the population. She had similar reservations about sports betting before making a similar U-turn on it in 2022.
Tribal authority shapes market access
Exclusive access has been provided to the four Wabanaki tribes, providing them with exclusive authority. The caveat is that it applies a tax rate of 18%, while sports betting remains at a rate of 10%.
It is these four tribes that also hold access to online sports betting rights, and they have done this through partnerships with major brands. This is the only way outside companies can gain access to the state. All of this follows the similar approach brought in for sports betting in 2023, so it makes sense that Maine would reuse a similar model. Yet it was not without opposition. The Maine Gambling Control Board had been in favour of including the state’s two commercial casinos.
Comparing different digital casino models
Interestingly, Maine was one of the many states that have recently outlawed the sweepstakes model of casino in the United States. These operators got around gambling laws by working under a sweepstakes model, in which no cash was used for deposits or could be won in games. Instead, they used in-game currencies.
At sweepstakes casinos, gold coins are used to play games, and sweep coins are won as prizes and in giveaways. It is the latter that can be used to enter prize draws for a chance to win prizes. Aside from that, most of these platforms look like any real money casino. Even top developers have begun to adapt their games to sweepstakes models. When the crash game Aviator launched in the United States, it chose to do so at sweepstakes casinos.
When passed, lawmakers said that it removed the ambiguity inherent in compliance with gambling laws. This made both the operation and the promotion of these types of sites illegal. Maine then joined Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Maryland in banning them. This shows just how game classification can influence the structure of online casino access.
All of this clears up what online casinos are for those in the state. They are casinos in which fiat currency is exchanged, and cash prizes can be won. This takes away the option to technically gamble for free by winning prizes.
Why Maine matters beyond one state
It is worth noting that Maine’s physical casinos still do well. It has two land-based casinos, which pulled in $15.6 million in revenue in July alone. This was a 3.5% increase on the year before. Slot revenue alone reached $13.6 million, a 7.1% increase year on year. However, this did offset a decline in table game revenue. Combined, they produced $15.6 million in revenue.
Maine matters on the wider scale, as it had no outside competition from day one. By introducing tribal exclusivity, major brands had no impact on the legislation or could influence whether it would or would not pass, either through lobbying or otherwise. This caused discussion in other states, particularly Virginia, where questions were raised about why they could not follow a similar path. This provides evidence for those in states where legislation is stuck in limbo.
Many of the major providers have combined state action committees, which have been formed to work on state legislative discussions. With a reported $41 million in the pot to do so, this provides them with concrete examples of how Maine’s market is a case study, though only if it works. If it does, then it could influence many other states to do the same.