Gaming - Prohibition on Interactive Games and Revenue From Illegal Markets
SB112 would prohibit the operation, conduct, or promotion of certain “interactive games” in Maryland. The bill defines interactive games broadly to include internet- or mobile-accessible games that use a dual-currency system and simulate casino-style gaming, lottery games, or sports wagering, while excluding games that only award noncash prizes. A person who violates the prohibition would commit a misdemeanor and face up to 3 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $10,000 to $100,000, or both.
The bill also adds new licensing and disclosure requirements for regulated gaming applicants and licensees. Applicants and licensees would have to report business relationships with entities known to support or promote interactive games, and they would have to disclose whether they or their affiliates have accepted revenue from interactive games in jurisdictions where such games are illegal. The State Lottery and Gaming Control Commission would be required to deny, revoke, or sanction licenses in certain cases involving false disclosures or prohibited revenue sources. The bill further bars the Commission from issuing or continuing licenses for persons or affiliates that knowingly accept revenue derived from high-risk jurisdictions, state sponsors of terrorism, or jurisdictions where online casino gaming is prohibited.
In practical terms, SB112 would amend the Criminal Law Article and the State Government Article, expanding the Commission’s oversight of gaming licensees and creating new grounds for denial, suspension, or revocation. It would also extend these requirements to sports wagering licensees and their employees or contractors through cross-references in the sports wagering subtitle. The act is set to take effect July 1, 2026.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the bill’s general sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call history. Based on the bill’s sponsorship by the Budget and Taxation Committee at the request of the Department of Lottery and Gaming Control Agency, the measure appears to reflect a regulatory and enforcement-oriented approach to gaming oversight. The main policy tension is likely between consumer protection, market integrity, and anti-illegal-gaming enforcement on one side, and concerns about the breadth of the prohibition and its impact on gaming businesses, affiliates, and payment or platform providers on the other.
SB112 would create a new criminal prohibition on operating, conducting, or promoting defined interactive games in Maryland and would add related disclosure, licensing, and enforcement provisions to the State Government Article. It would require the State Lottery and Gaming Control Commission to review business relationships and revenue sources tied to illegal interactive gaming markets and to deny, revoke, or sanction licenses when applicants, licensees, or affiliates are tied to prohibited activity or certain high-risk jurisdictions. The bill would also apply these requirements to sports wagering licensees through existing cross-references, expanding regulatory oversight across the gaming sector.
No committee transcripts or vote history were provided, so there is no direct record of debate, support, or opposition. The bill’s structure and sponsor indicate a regulatory and enforcement-focused proposal from the gaming regulator’s perspective, suggesting likely support from those prioritizing gaming integrity and opposition or concern from affected industry participants. Overall sentiment cannot be determined from the available record beyond that administrative framing.
The main points of contention are likely to be the breadth of the definition of “interactive game,” which covers internet-based games that simulate casino, lottery, or sports wagering formats, and the scope of liability for affiliates, payment processors, platform providers, and other business partners. Another likely issue is the bill’s treatment of revenue derived from jurisdictions where online casino gaming is prohibited or from high-risk or terrorism-designated jurisdictions, which could affect multi-jurisdictional gaming businesses. The Commission’s authority to deny, revoke, or suspend licenses based on disclosures and revenue sources may also raise concerns about compliance burdens and enforcement discretion.