A new online casino proposal for Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C. has a new proposal to legalize regulated online casino gambling and draw a hard line against dual-currency sweepstakes products. The measure, B26-0656, is titled the Internet Gaming and Consumer Protection Act of 2026 and was reported on September 21, 2026.
For players comparing casino options, the bill matters because it would create a legal online casino route in the District rather than leaving residents to sort through offshore sites, social casino products, and sweepstakes-style platforms. It is still only a bill, not active law. The next step is legislative consideration by the D.C. Council, with no reported hearing date or enactment deadline.
The proposal would authorize casino-style games including blackjack, poker, roulette, and slot-style games. Those games could be played on mobile devices and computers, giving D.C. players a framework closer to the regulated iGaming models already seen in several U.S. states.
What B26-0656 would allow
The bill would permit licensed operators to offer online casino games to eligible players in Washington, D.C. The minimum player age would be 21. Regulatory oversight would sit with the D.C. Office of Lottery and Gaming, the same local authority already associated with gambling oversight in the District.
The product list is broad enough to cover the main categories most online casino players compare. Blackjack and roulette would address live table and digital table game demand. Poker would create space for card-room style products, subject to whatever operational details regulators later set. Slot-style games would cover the largest category at most online casinos.
The bill also specifies access through mobile devices and computers. That detail is important for players because modern legal online casinos are usually app-led, but desktop access remains relevant for account management, larger-screen play, and some poker formats.
The proposal does not mean that every casino brand could immediately enter D.C. Operators would need a licence, pay required fees, and comply with rules issued or enforced by the Office of Lottery and Gaming. Until legislation passes and licences are awarded, no site can claim to be licensed under this proposed framework.
The cost of a D.C. online casino licence
B26-0656 sets a 25% tax on gross iGaming revenue. It also requires each operator to pay a $2 million licence fee. Licences would run for five years. Renewal would be available for another five years with a $500,000 renewal fee.
Those numbers matter to players because licensing costs can affect which operators enter a market. A $2 million upfront fee is significant for a jurisdiction the size of Washington, D.C. It may favor larger casino and betting brands with existing compliance teams, technical platforms, and capital. Smaller operators may find the economics harder to justify unless the rules allow partnerships or a limited-cost route that is not described in the available report.
The 25% gross revenue tax is also relevant. Tax rates do not directly tell players whether bonuses will be good or poor, but they influence operator margins. In tightly taxed markets, casinos may be more selective with promotions, rewards, and retention offers. Players should avoid assuming that legalization automatically means unusually generous bonus terms.
At the same time, a regulated market can produce benefits that are not visible in headline promotions. Licensed operators must typically follow requirements around age checks, geolocation, responsible gambling tools, complaint handling, and game standards. The exact D.C. rules would depend on the final bill and implementing regulations.
The sweepstakes ban is central to the proposal
The most distinctive part of the bill is its proposed ban on dual-currency gaming products. The brief defines these as products using multiple currencies, credits, tokens, entries, or points that can be redeemed, converted, transferred, or used directly or indirectly for cash or prizes.
That language targets the dual-currency structure used by many sweepstakes casino products. In a typical model, players may receive or buy one form of virtual currency for entertainment play and receive another form that can be used for games with prize-redemption potential. The legal status of those models has been disputed across the U.S., with regulators and lawmakers increasingly scrutinizing whether they resemble unlicensed online casinos.
For D.C. players, the practical effect would be a cleaner dividing line. A licensed online casino would operate under the Office of Lottery and Gaming framework. A dual-currency sweepstakes product would be prohibited if it falls within the bill’s definition. That would reduce the gray area that often makes casino comparison difficult.
The bill’s wording is broad. It does not only refer to currencies. It also refers to credits, tokens, entries, and points, and it captures systems that lead directly or indirectly to cash or prizes. That breadth suggests lawmakers are not only focused on one current sweepstakes format, but on similar structures that could be renamed or redesigned.
How players should compare sites if the bill advances
If B26-0656 moves forward, D.C. players should compare online casinos first by legal status, not by bonus size. The key question would be whether a site is licensed by the D.C. Office of Lottery and Gaming under the final law. A legal operator should be able to identify its D.C. licence clearly and provide terms that match local requirements.
Age eligibility would be another clear filter. The proposed minimum age is 21. Any product presenting itself as available to younger D.C. users for casino-style prize play would not match the proposed iGaming standard.
Game type should also be checked. The bill would authorize blackjack, poker, roulette, and slot-style games, but the final approved catalogue may depend on regulations and operator approvals. Players should not assume that every licensed site will offer every category at launch.
Payment protections and withdrawal rules should remain part of any comparison. The brief does not list payment methods, withdrawal time limits, or segregation rules for player funds. Those details would need to be assessed once regulations and operator terms are available.
Responsible gambling tools should also be reviewed. A regulated D.C. market would be expected to address account limits, self-exclusion, and age verification, but the exact consumer-protection package is not set out in the brief. Players should look for deposit limits, time-outs, self-exclusion access, clear account closure rules, and transparent support channels.
What is not known yet
The proposal is early in the legislative process. The available report does not provide a scheduled hearing, committee date, vote timeline, launch date, licence-application window, or number of potential operators. It also does not state whether online casino licences would be tied to existing land-based gambling interests, sports betting operators, or lottery partners.
Those missing details are important. Market access rules can shape the number of brands available. A competitive licensing model can produce more choice. A restricted model can limit comparison shopping and concentrate the market among a small number of operators.
The bill also raises operational questions. D.C. would need geolocation controls to confirm play occurs within the District. Operators would need identity verification to enforce the 21+ rule. Regulators would need technical standards for games, records, audits, and player complaints. None of those details change the bill’s core direction, but they will determine how useful the market is for players in practice.
The player takeaway
B26-0656 would make Washington, D.C. a serious new online casino legalization proposal rather than a minor technical adjustment. It combines regulated access to blackjack, poker, roulette, and slot-style games with a direct prohibition on dual-currency sweepstakes products.
For players, the central comparison point is clear. If the bill becomes law, the safer category to evaluate would be D.C.-licensed online casinos overseen by the Office of Lottery and Gaming, available only to players aged 21 and older. Offshore casinos and dual-currency sweepstakes products would sit outside that proposed legal route.
The next verifiable milestone is D.C. Council consideration of B26-0656. Until the Council acts, the proposal should be treated as a significant regulatory signal, not as permission for legal online casino play in Washington, D.C.
