HB295 prohibits the operation, conduct, or promotion of certain “interactive games” in Maryland. The bill defines interactive games broadly to include internet- or mobile-accessible games, contests, or promotions that involve consideration, chance, and reward and that simulate casino-style gaming, lottery games, or sports wagering. It also excludes certain free-to-play or noncash-prize games that do not involve those gambling elements.
The bill creates new reporting and disclosure obligations for applicants and licensees regulated by the State Lottery and Gaming Control Commission. Covered persons must disclose business relationships with entities known to support or promote interactive games, and must also report revenue accepted, directly or indirectly, from illegal interactive gaming markets. The Commission is authorized to deny licenses, revoke licenses, or impose sanctions if applicants, licensees, or their affiliates knowingly accept revenue from specified high-risk or prohibited jurisdictions, including jurisdictions subject to Financial Action Task Force calls for action, state sponsors of terrorism, or places where online casino gaming is illegal. The bill also makes knowing violations a misdemeanor punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment and/or fines, with fines directed to the Problem Gambling Fund.
HB295 further amends Maryland’s gaming licensing laws to tie these new restrictions into existing Commission authority over gaming and sports wagering. It clarifies that the Commission’s authority to determine whether gaming is legal extends to internet- and mobile-based games, and it expands the Commission’s ability to act on false statements, material omissions, and prohibited revenue sources in licensing decisions. The bill takes effect July 1, 2026.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s progress is supportive, as it received a favorable committee report, was adopted by the House, and passed third reading with a substantial majority vote of 101-23. The absence of recorded committee transcript discussion limits insight into detailed debate, but the vote suggests broad agreement on the need to curb unregulated online gaming and tighten licensing standards.
The main points of contention likely center on how broadly the bill defines “interactive game,” whether it could sweep in certain promotional or digital gaming products, and the reach of the Commission’s authority over affiliates and revenue sources tied to other jurisdictions. Another possible concern is the criminal penalty structure and the requirement that licensees monitor and disclose business relationships with a wide range of vendors and media affiliates. Supporters appear to favor consumer protection, regulatory clarity, and anti-money-laundering safeguards, while opponents may view the bill as overbroad or burdensome for legitimate gaming-related businesses.
HB295 adds a new criminal prohibition in the Criminal Law Article and new licensing, disclosure, and enforcement provisions in the State Government Article governing the State Lottery and Gaming Control Commission. It expands the Commission’s oversight of interactive online and mobile gaming, requires annual disclosures about business relationships and revenue from illegal gaming markets, and authorizes denial, suspension, or revocation of licenses for certain conduct. It also links penalties to the Problem Gambling Fund and applies the new rules to sports wagering licensing provisions by cross-reference.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable treatment in the House. It was reported favorably with amendments, adopted by the House, and passed third reading by a wide margin of 101 yeas to 23 nays. With no committee transcript available, there is no recorded detailed debate, but the vote pattern indicates substantial support for stronger regulation of online gaming and illegal-market revenue sources.
Likely areas of disagreement include the breadth of the definition of “interactive game,” especially its application to internet- and mobile-based games that resemble casino, lottery, or sports wagering products. Another contentious issue is the bill’s requirement that applicants and licensees disclose relationships with a broad set of vendors and affiliates, and the Commission’s authority to deny or revoke licenses based on revenue connected to certain jurisdictions. Opponents may also object to the criminal penalties and the possibility that the bill could affect legitimate gaming businesses or promotional platforms that operate near the line of the definition.