The state of Ohio could be moving toward iLottery based on the recommendation of the state General Assembly.
A detailed report that was made available last Friday on the future of gaming in Ohio shows that multiple commission members are in favor of adding iGaming and online lottery in the state.
The report included letters from Ohio House and Senate members. Many of them supported Ohio joining the group of states with online lotteries.
Reps. Jay Edwards, Jeff LaRe, and Cindy Abrams submitted a joint letter in favor of adding iLottery in Ohio:
“Looking at other states who have implemented either or both iLottery and iGaming, we see significant increases to tax revenues generated with greater participation but also that in-person sales continued to increase. That can largely be contributed to more people participating in the market on their phones and becoming more comfortable/knowledgeable about doing it at a physical location.”
Commission addresses lottery retailer concerns in Ohio
The 354-page commission report was assembled over four meetings between the group. It included testimony from a wide variety of companies involved in online gaming and iLottery.
The report acknowledged that Ohio Lottery retailers are concerned with cannibalization by legalizing online lottery. However, the House Republicans still feel it is an area with great potential when it comes to bringing in more tax revenue and funding for the state:
“While we understand their hesitation to expand due to an uncertain impact, we believe that iLottery and iGaming could be a net benefit to the state of Ohio. … These tax revenue benefits to the state and funding that could be provided to our K-12 education system cannot be overlooked.”
Ohio Lottery Commission Director Michelle Gillcrist also supported the idea that an online lottery wouldn’t take away from the retail business:
“Should Ohio’s legislators and policymakers decide to move forward with iLottery, the Ohio Lottery would continue its track record of supporting its retail base, as the retailers are integral to our success. As data in other states show, iLottery brings in a new player.”
Not all are in support of expanding the state lottery to the online world. Included is Sen. Al Landis:
“My position is to maintain the status quo and keep the brick-and-mortar sites rather than have the state expand into iLottery and other forms of virtual gaming.”
While cannibalization is an understood concern, North Carolina has shown that retail and iLottery can successfully co-exist.
After becoming the fastest state to reach $1 billion in sales for its instant win games online, the state is up 21% in lottery sales for FY24. When removing sales from the North Carolina online lottery, the state only saw a 2% decline in year-over-year sales from its draw games and scratchers.
Manning cautiously proposes online draw games
Sen. Nathan Manning, who was co-chair of the commission, has been in support of iLottery in Ohio. He introduced Senate Bill 269 to legalize online lottery in 2022. It passed the Senate but did not pass the House.
In this latest report, Manning is pushing for Ohio to allow online purchases of lottery draw games.
Ohio is already home to four different courier services that allow customers to purchase retail tickets online through a third party.
“I do believe we should move forward with a portion of SB 269 and allow Lottery to offer draw games and multi-state games online. These products are already available online through third party venders, and it is common sense to allow Lottery to offer them directly to consumers.”
Manning did cite proceeding with caution as the best way to address problem gambling concerns. He also noted he was not in favor of the state pursuing online casino expansion.
The trio of Edwards, LaRe, and Abrams expressed a need to focus on protecting consumers from the threats of identity theft that can arise through online gambling, as well:
“With ongoing domestic and foreign threats to everyday Ohioans’ data, these platforms provide another avenue for hackers to gain access to someone’s personal records. Further, any expansion of gaming must be done so with caution to the current framework in mind. Allowing iGaming would have an impact on the current casinos and VLT’s that exist throughout this state. … Any implementation of iGaming must not come at a cost to these entities.”
Photo by lucadp via Shutterstock
Graphic from the Ohio Lottery