Editor
A new bill in Washington, D.C. would legalize iGaming in the District, and the fine print includes a provision relevant to poker players.
Ward 7 Councilmember Wendell Felder introduced the “Internet Gaming and Consumer Protection Act of 2026” to the D.C. Council on April 9. A public hearing is scheduled for May 4.
This sweeping piece of legislation would authorize, regulate, and tax online casino-style gaming in the nation’s capital for the first time. The bill covers everything one would expect, like slots, blackjack, roulette, and live dealer games.
However, for the poker community specifically, Section 514 contains a line that matters more than anything else in the 28-page document. The bill explicitly authorizes the District to enter into reciprocal agreements with other jurisdictions for “pooled liquidity and interstate or interjurisdictional internet poker.”
It’s not the first recent attempt to push for expanded gambling in Washington, D.C. Last October, Mayor Muriel Bowser introduced the Poker and Blackjack Gaming Authorization Act of 2025 in hopes of generating revenue with legal card clubs. It never emerged from committee, though it’s been reintroduced this year.
The Liquidity Problem
Anyone who has played online poker in a regulated U.S. state knows that the player pools are quite small. Shared liquidity solves this problem, as players from different states share the same tables.
The Multi-State Internet Gaming Agreement (MSIGA) continues building liquidity as each new jurisdiction joins. Pennsylvania became the sixth state to join the compact in April 2025. Its addition expanded the shared player pool by about 50%.
Washington would add a jurisdiction with a population of about 700,000 residents, who, according to the bill’s legislative findings, already bet heavily online. The bill cites estimates showing that D.C. residents placed about $700 million in bets on unlicensed iGaming platforms in 2024. These represent real players, many of whom already have experience with offshore poker sites and could move into a regulated shared liquidity network.
What the Washington iGaming Bill Says
Section 514 of the bill, titled “Reciprocal Agreements,” lays out the framework. The Executive or the Council can enter agreements with what the bill defines as “permissible jurisdictions,” including states, territories, and tribal jurisdictions that maintain reciprocal agreements for internet gaming with the District.
The bill requires these agreements to address enforcement, revenue allocation, regulatory access, responsible gambling, anti-money laundering cooperation, and dispute resolution.
The bill specifically names “interstate or interjurisdictional internet poker” as a permitted use of these agreements, rather than relying on general “internet gaming” language. Lawmakers deliberately included this wording, which shows they understand the liquidity problem.
What Taxes and Fees Look Like
Operators interested in the Washington market must handle significant upfront costs, but lawmakers structured these costs to reward long-term participation. The operator license application carries a $2 million fee, and regulators will not refund it even if they reject the application. The renewal fee stands at $500,000 for a five-year term, while supplier licenses cost $50,000 to apply and $25,000 to renew.
In terms of taxes, operators must pay 25% of adjusted gross internet gaming revenue (AGIGR) every month. Regulators also impose a 2% regulatory assessment to cover the Office of Lottery and Gaming’s (OLG) administrative costs and a 2% community impact assessment that funds various programs, including gambling behavior research.
Officials will direct the first $500,000 of monthly tax revenue to the Department of Behavioral Health for gambling addiction prevention and treatment.
Regulators allow marketing credits, but they enforce a capped structure. Starting in the third year of licensing, operators can deduct no more than 1.75% of adjusted gross internet gaming revenue for promotional credits. The OLG can approve a higher temporary cap in the first year to support market entry.
Customer Protections in Proposed Washington iGaming
The law sets the minimum age for iGaming at 21, aligning with other states. Operators must verify both age and physical location before accepting any wager. The legislation includes comprehensive problem gambling provisions. Operators must provide deposit limits, loss limits, session time limits, cool-off periods of at least 72 hours, self-exclusion options, and real-time access to account history.
Notably, the bill includes a provision for third-party exclusion requests. Family members who can demonstrate joint financial vulnerability tied to a customer’s deposited funds can petition authorities to exclude that individual. This measure strengthens consumer protection beyond what most existing state frameworks offer.
A Sweepstakes Gaming Ban
The bill also introduces an outright ban on unlicensed sweepstakes gaming and dual-currency products. These platforms have gained popularity across the U.S. by operating in a legal grey zone, selling free coins while simultaneously awarding site currency worth real money.
Section 520 defines operating such platforms in the District without a license as a violation. Regulators treat each day of violation as a separate offense, which can lead to fines of up to $100,000 per violation and as much as $500,000 for repeated violations under the same pattern of practice.
The OLG can issue cease-and-desist orders, and the attorney general can pursue civil action, including injunctive relief and disgorgement.
Timeline and What Comes Next
If lawmakers approve the legislation, the District’s Chief Financial Officer must issue proposed rules within 90 days of the effective date, create an application process within 30 days, and authorize internet gaming no later than 180 days after the effective date. The mayor can extend this timeline only if they certify that additional time is necessary for regulatory or system readiness.
The act will take effect only after officials include its fiscal impact in an approved budget and financial plan and complete a 60-day congressional review period. These steps create additional procedural hurdles that lawmakers must navigate.
However, lawmakers have already laid the groundwork, and officials in Washington can now focus on the estimated $700 million currently flowing to offshore operators. The poker community will watch closely to see whether Washington can secure shared liquidity agreements with existing MSIGA states if online poker becomes a reality.
Image credit: Tripp/Flickr (license)
