Gov. Janet Mills sided with tribes last week, allowing the passage of a law that makes Maine only the eighth state and the first in two years to regulate the online casino industry.
The legal regime is similar to the one that the Democratic governor signed off on in 2022 that gave tribes control of the lucrative mobile sports betting market. That did not go live until late the following year. Maine regulators could move faster on iGaming, which could generate more than $100 million in tax revenue over a decade.
None of that is set in stone. Opponents of the new law, led by the owner of at least one of Maine’s two brick-and-mortar casinos, are already threatening a people’s veto that would either overturn the law or keep it on ice until late this year.
Here are the answers to major questions about the market, including the big amount of money at stake and some news about the key players.
How does Maine’s law work?
It mirrors the sports betting one. Each of Maine’s four federally recognized tribes are able to make agreements with companies that must go to get operating licenses from the Gambling Control Unit within the Maine Department of Public Safety.
Maine set the tax rate at 18% of gross gaming receipts, which is well within the standard range among regulated states. It is higher than the sports betting rate of 10%, a nod to the higher predictability of the revenue in casino-style games like blackjack and roulette.
How much money will it generate?
Maine generated $6 million in revenue in the first full year of sports betting. The new market generally is seen as being three to four times bigger than that one, meaning the potential for the tribes in iGaming is high.
Income levels here should be able to support at least $50 in annual revenue per adult, said Gene Johnson, executive vice president of Victor-Strategies, an Illinois gambling consultancy. At that uptake, Maine would see $57.9 million in annual revenue and $10.4 million in taxes.
That would go far beyond a conservative estimate prepared last year by the Legislature’s fiscal office. Tribes do not have to disclose their deals with betting companies, but they could stand to gain even more under their agreements.
When will betting start?
It’s neither clear nor entirely up to Mills’ top gambling regulator, Milton Champion, who did not respond to a request for comment on his timeframe. Maine should not need more than three months to get the market up and running, Johnson said.
However, the law doesn’t go into effect until three months after the Legislature adjourns for the year. Rulemaking would have to follow, likely putting the best-case scenario for iGaming to begin in the fall. Johnson noted that Champion was slow by national standards in launching sports betting.
There is also the people’s veto threat, which came from the National Association Against iGaming, an industry group whose members include Churchill Downs, the owner of Oxford Casino. Opponents would have 90 days after the law goes into effect to gather signatures to get on the ballot. Doing so would at least delay it from hitting the books until the end of 2026.
That group said the law would disrupt “a proven gaming framework.” But one chief said the law is going to have a huge economic impact for the tribes and state.
“If this is something that we have to get prepared to fight about with whoever the organizations are or the casinos, it’s unfortunate because that’s not what this is about,” Chief William Nicholas Sr. of the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township said. “But we won’t roll over.”
Who are the key players in the new market?
The Passamaquoddy partnership with DraftKings is dominating Maine’s sports betting landscape, bringing in 82% of the online revenue in 2025 through November. The Penobscot, Maliseet and Mi’kmaq tribes have a joint partnership with Caesars Sportsbook.
Both of the companies operating in Maine are also in the online casino market. DraftKings will remain the Passamaquoddy partner, Nicholas said. Caesars is the largest gaming company in the U.S. and is better known for its casinos than sports betting.
What does the research say about iGaming?
A people’s veto campaign will be about the parochial concerns of the incumbent casinos and litigate two main issues: effects on gambling addiction and the displacement of brick-and-mortar gaming.
States that have legalized sports betting have seen increased debt levels, according to a study from a UCLA professor released last year. Younger adults, men, online players and sports bettors were the most likely populations to report compulsive gambling behavior in a national survey in 2021. But this kind of gambling is already available via other platforms that neither provide tax revenue to states nor contain the consumer protections that regulators require.
An analysis paid for by the National Association Against iGaming predicted heavy displacement of casinos and other forms of entertainment in states including Maine. But Johnson, whose company works with tribes, called the study biased in that direction and noted recent growth across betting sectors in New Jersey, which regulated online casinos in 2013.
