Public Hearing on Internet Gaming and Consumer Protection Act of 2026 - May 4, 2026
Public Hearing on Internet Gaming and Consumer Protection Act of 2026 - May 4, 2026
On May 4, 2026, the Committee on Human Services, chaired by Ward 3 Councilmember Matt Fruman, held a public hearing on Bill 26-0656, the Internet Gaming and Consumer Protection Act of 2026. The bill, introduced by Councilmember Felder, seeks to legalize and regulate online casino-style gambling (iGaming) in the District of Columbia, establishing a licensing framework, consumer protections, responsible gaming requirements, and a 25% tax on revenue. The hearing included testimony from industry representatives, advocacy groups, addiction experts, former addicts, and the Office of Lottery and Gaming (OLG).
Public Comments & Testimony
- Les Burnell, National Director, Stop Predatory Gambling: Opposed the bill, arguing that legalized gambling does not displace illegal markets but expands addiction. He stated that DC residents lose $150 per minute to government-sponsored gambling and that 70% of online gambling profits come from 0.5% of users. He called the bill "taxation by exploitation."
- Bernie Horn, ANC Commissioner 3D05: Opposed, citing that legalization will not stop illegal sites and will create more gamblers. He argued the bill is premature given upcoming elections.
- Oliver Barry, National Association Against iGaming: Opposed, noting that iGaming imposes $350 million per year in social costs in New Jersey, and that illegal gambling still controls 74% of the $90 billion market. He raised legal concerns about the Johnson Act.
- Briandora Schwal, Director, National Campaign for Fairer Gambling: Opposed, stating iGaming is 10 times more addictive than other forms, and that states with iGaming saw addiction rates triple. She cited that 71% of Connecticut's gambling revenue comes from 7% of players.
- Keith White, Safe for Gambling Strategies: Did not take a position but urged the council to fund problem gambling services and adopt best-in-class responsible gaming regulations. He noted that channelization from illegal to legal markets is possible but requires enforcement and public education.
- Matt Scalf, DraftKings: Supported the bill, stating DraftKings already operates responsibly in DC and that iGaming would generate an estimated $500 million over five years. He highlighted the company's responsible gaming tools, which 52% of users engage.
- Rob O'Connor, BetMGM: Supported, noting that BetMGM has invested $65 million in DC sports betting and that competitive iGaming markets in neighboring states have succeeded. He emphasized the value of omnichannel experiences.
- John Pappas, iDevelopment and Economic Association: Supported, arguing that over 100,000 monthly visits to illegal offshore sites occur from DC. He said the bill provides guardrails that do not exist in the illegal market.
- Michelle McGregor, Sports Betting Alliance: Supported, stating that legalization paired with enforcement can reduce illegal gambling. She cited Michigan's 75% compliance rate with cease and desist orders after loopholes were closed.
- Brian Schroeder, ARB Interactive (Moto Casino): Opposed the bill's provision banning social sweepstakes gaming, arguing it would push consumers to unregulated offshore sites. He requested regulation instead of prohibition.
- Wayne Frazier, Maryland Washington Minority Companies Association: Opposed, stating iGaming offers few economic opportunities for minority-owned businesses and will devastate families.
- Jessica Wellman (reading Rob Minick's testimony): Opposed, sharing a personal story of addiction exacerbated by iGaming in New Jersey. She warned that constant access leads to loss of control.
- Alfonso Guida, DC resident and mental health lobbyist: Opposed, comparing iGaming advertising to the Sackler family's opioid marketing. He said addiction rates tripled in states with iGaming and that the industry's advertising vastly exceeds that of illegal operators.
- Aaron Sanchez, Ward 7 resident and former EMT: Opposed, arguing iGaming disproportionately harms young men and extracts wealth from low-income communities without creating local jobs.
- Ricardo Cornejo Rivas, Caesars Entertainment: Supported, emphasizing the 35% CBE requirement and the potential for live dealer jobs. He recommended limiting licenses to existing sports wagering operators.
- Lloyd Melnick, VGW Holdings: Opposed the ban on social plus games, arguing they are not iGaming and that banning them would cost DC sales tax revenue. He stated that over 50% of their players never spend money.
- David Nangle, former Massachusetts state representative and gambling addict: Opposed, sharing his personal story of addiction and warning that iGaming is up to 10 times more addictive. He said there is no "Narcan" for gambling.
Discussion Items
- Revenue Estimates and Social Costs: Councilmembers questioned the reliability of the $700 million wagered figure. Testimony conflicted: opponents cited the $350 million in social costs in New Jersey, while proponents pointed to potential $500 million in tax revenue over five years.
- Channelization (Displacement of Illegal Markets): A key debate. Proponents argued that legalization with enforcement can move players to regulated markets. Opponents cited studies showing illegal markets grow even after legalization (e.g., Michigan's illegal market grew 64% in 2024).
- Consumer Protections: Discussion focused on guardrails: age verification, KYC, geolocation, deposit limits, cooling-off periods, and banning credit cards. DraftKings noted 52% tool usage; OLG stated they will incorporate industry-standard protections.
- Responsible Gaming Funding: The bill allocates $500,000 annually for problem gambling services. Director Burnside recommended increasing to $750,000–$1 million, citing West Virginia's experience.
- CBE (Certified Business Enterprise) Participation: The bill requires 35% CBE involvement. Testimony from Wayne Frazier questioned the feasibility, while Caesars and others expressed commitment. Councilmember Felder inquired about concrete opportunities.
- Speed of Play and Addictive Design: Councilmembers asked about slowing game speed to reduce harm. OLG indicated they could regulate this through play rules and minimum internal controls.
- Social Sweepstakes Gaming: Multiple witnesses (ARB, VGW) argued that the bill's definition of unlawful gambling would ban their legitimate sweepstakes models, which they claim are not gambling. They requested regulation instead of prohibition.
- Federal Legal Concerns: Oliver Barry noted potential violation of the Johnson Act, which the council would need to consider.
Key Outcomes
- No vote taken; the hearing was for testimony only.
- Written testimony deadline: May 11, 2026, at 5:00 PM.
- Technical changes proposed: Director Burnside suggested codifying certain responsible gaming measures and increasing problem gambling funding. He also noted that emergency rulemaking would be required within 90 days of passage, with a goal of full implementation within 6 months.
- Councilmember Henderson expressed skepticism about revenue projections and requested more data from OLG.
- Councilmember Felder committed to working with stakeholders on CBE requirements and strengthening enforcement against illegal operators.
- The committee will continue to accept written testimony and consider amendments before reporting the bill.
Meeting Transcript
Good afternoon. I am Matt Fruman, Ward 3 Councilmember and Chairperson of the Committee on Human Services. Today is May 4th, 2026, and we are meeting in room 123 of the John A. Wilson building and on the Zoom platform. The time is now 11 p.m. Today we are conducting a public hearing on B26-0656, the Internet Gaming and Consumer Protection Act of 2026. Bill 26-0656 was introduced by Councilmember Felder on April 9th, 2026. The stated purpose of the Internet Gaming and Consumer Protection Act of 2026 is to amend the district's existing law governing the lottery and associated games to add a new title authorizing and regulating Internet Gaming or eGaming. Online casino style games like Blackjack, Poker, and Roulette played on mobile devices or computers are already accessible to district residents through unregulated and offshore platforms. In 2024, it is estimated that DC residents wagered close to 700 million dollars on these unlicensed platforms. I will say I am going to ask folks who may have generated those estimates how they generated those estimates. This legislation establishes a comprehensive licensing framework, including a consumer protection plan, responsible gaming requirements, taxation, reporting, and an enforcement framework administered by the Office of Lottery and Gaming, or OLG. Additionally, the bill defines and prohibits unlicensed sweepstakes gaming and similar dual currency gaming products. This allows the district to take action against these unlawful online platforms. The bill also makes conforming and administrative changes necessary to implement safe eye gaming within the district. I look forward to hearing from our public witnesses about their opinions regarding legalizing and regulating eye gaming in the district. Any potential monetary gain for the district through regulation and taxation of online gaming must be weighed against ensuring the health and safety of our residents. Some logistics on testimony. Before we uh hear from our public witnesses, and I expect we will be joined by Councilmember Felder shortly. I I ask that all witnesses limit their testimony to the allotted time. Advisory neighborhood commissioners and the first representatives of organizations to speak will have five minutes. Other public witnesses will have three minutes to testify. After hearing from our in-person witnesses, we will turn to our virtual witnesses. And I'm going to call those witnesses to the table and then the first round of witnesses to the table and then turn to councilmember Felder should he wish to make an opening statement. So let's start with uh Les Burnell, Director uh Les Burnell. Oh. Uh Mr. Horn, were you going to go first or Les? First? Okay. So uh Bernie Horn. And then before we get you started on your testimony, let me turn to Councilmember Felder to see if he has an opening statement. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Fiumann, and good afternoon to our public and government witnesses. A few weeks ago, I introduced the Internet Gaming and Consumer Protection Act of 2026. Bill 26 Days 0656 to regulate and legalize an activity that is already happening every single day across the District of Columbia, iGaming. Studies show that district residents are already participating in online gaming and online casino style gambling through offshore and unregulated platforms. Whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, this market already exists. The question before us is not whether online gaming happens, it does. The question is whether the district will continue allowing millions of dollars to flow outside of our oversight and outside of our economy, or whether we will regulate it responsibly, protect consumers, and generate revenue that benefits district residents. Estimates show that D.C. residents wagered approximately $700 million on unregulated gaming platforms in 2024 alone. That is revenue currently leaving our city with little to no consumer protection, no meaningful oversight, and no public benefit for the people of the district. As our economy continues to shift, as federal layoffs and pack working families, and as we face ongoing budget pressures and economic uncertainty, we must begin thinking creatively and responsibly about sustaining revenue sources that do not place additional burdens on residents already struggling with the rising cost of living. This legislation creates a regulated framework for online gambling under the Office of Lottery and Gaming with strong consumer safeguards, age verification requirements, responsible gaming tools, and enforcement authority to crack down on illegal and predatory operators. Importantly, this bill also is about accountability and public benefit. The legislation establishes a 25% tax on online gaming revenue and licensing fees that can help the district address critical budget shortfalls while supporting investments and behavioral health services, financial literacy, consumer protection, and other essential public programs. This is not about encouraging gambling. It is about recognizing reality and responding responsibly. If residents are already engaging in these activities, then we have an obligation to ensure there are safeguards in place to protect them, especially young people and vulnerable residents, while ensuring the district receives the economic benefit instead of unregulated offshore companies.
openpublica.com