Us States Online Gambling Legal

Posted on by admin
  1. Legal States For Online Gambling
  2. Is Online Gambling Legal
  3. Us Online Gambling Laws
  4. Where Is Online Gambling Legal

Three US federal laws (the Wire Act, the Travel Act and the Illegal Gambling Business Act) and the provisions of four US state laws (those of Louisiana, Massachusetts, South Dakota and Utah) on their face, prohibit one, several or all means of delivery included in mode 1 of GATS (i.e. Cross-border supply), contrary to the United States’ specific market access commitments for gambling and betting services for mode 1. Delaware was the first state outside Nevada to accept a legal single-game sports bet, beating New Jersey by a few weeks after the Supreme Court struck down the federal wagering ban in May 2018.

Find detailed information on US casinos in every state - both land-based and online. Our experts have compiled information regarding states who legalized onlinecasinos and details about all legal USA online casinos. We have provided knowledge on gambling specifics for each state and what types of casinos are legal in each particular state. OnAmerican Casino Guide, you will find detailed lists of every US casino resort, riverboat casino and Indian casino in the country. Just choose a state from the below list of UScasinos-by-state in order to bring up detailed information on what types of casinos are available in the respective state, a list of all casinos within the state borders, and slot machine payback statistics for all US casinos.

Click here to see Maps of Casino Locations in Every U.S. State

Online gambling guide

The states who have now moved forward with legal online gambling are as follows:

Legal online casino:

  • Delaware
  • New Jersey
  • Pennsylvania

Legal online poker:

  • Nevada
  • Delaware
  • New Jersey
  • Pennsylvania

Legal Online Sportsbooks:

Us States Online Gambling Legal
  • Rhode Island
  • West Virginia
  • New Jersey
  • Pennsylvania

USA online casinos

The online casino USA market is definitely starting to grow. The domino effect is taking place, now that states are seeing the financial benefits of legal online casinos. The laws surroundingUSA online casinos are specific to the state where they are licensed. Ultimately it is up to the state to decide whether or not to legalize online casinos. We have seen the biggest impact oflegalizing online casinos in the state of New Jersey thus far.

In New Jersey, the online casino market is flourishing. There is a long list of legal online casinos - all of which are remaining competitive in this flourishing market. The current list oflegal NJ Casinos are as follows:

  • Golden Nugget
  • Virgin Online Casino
  • Caesars Casino Online
  • Borgata Online
  • Tropicana Online
  • SugarHouse Online Casino
  • Betfair NJ
  • 888 NJ
  • Pala Online Casino
  • Harrah’s Online Casino
  • Resorts Online Casino
  • Mohegan Sun Online
  • DraftKings Casino
  • Party Casino
  • PlayMGM
  • Ocean Resort Online
  • PokerStars NJ
  • Hard Rock Online
  • BetAmerica
  • Unibet Casino

Legal online casino gambling was recently just passed through legislation in Pennsylvania, meaning online casinos are on their way in the Keystone State. The projected list of online casinos in Pennsylvania are as follows:

  • Harrah’s
  • Hollywood at Penn National
  • Mount Airy
  • Parx
  • SugarHouse
  • Valley Forge
  • Presque Isle Downs
  • Sands Bethlehem
  • Stadium Park Philly Live! Casino
  • Mohegan Sun Pocono
  • MGM Resorts
  • Golden Nugget NJ

The only other state in America with legal online casino gambling is in fact, Delaware, and just like the state’s size, the list is quite small. The legal online casinos inDelaware are as follows:

  • Delaware Park Online
  • Dover Downs
  • Harrington Online

Here at American Casino Guide, we have thorough reviews on each legal online casino in the USA. In our comprehensive online casino reviews, you will find useful information about eachsite and how it affects you as a player. Review briefs on the game selections offered at each site along with some of their most popular game titles.Learn about the software providers and interface design of these sites as well as their mobile apps and how efficient each application runs. See the banking options allowed at each site so thatyou can be sure your preferred withdrawal and deposit methods are available on your favorite online casinos. And finally, see what kinds of casino bonuses and specialpromotions are being offered at these casinos so that you can achieve the maximum amount of free play on your favorite casino games!

American Casino Guide - land-based establishments

There are many different kinds of casinos throughout the United States. Depending on your location in the country, there could be a mix of the following casinos:

  • Indian casinos
  • Pari-mutuel casinos
  • Land-based casinos
  • Riverboat casinos
  • Casino boats

Just choose a state from the American casino guide below, organized by state, and have a look at the detailed information of each. The information provided includes:

  • List of every casino in the state
  • Details about each casino
  • Forms of casino gambling available in that state
  • Slot machine payback statistics for all U.S. casinos

Each casino listing will explain its hours of operation, games offered, hotel rates, buffet prices, minimum gambling age, photos, maps, directions and more! You can even read and write your ownreview for each casino.

LISTED BELOW ARE LINKS TO ALL CASINOS IN EVERY STATE

Indian Casinos

Indian casinos, also known as Tribal casinos, are usually located on federally recognized Indian reservations. They range in size from small truck stops and convenience storesto some of the largest casinos in the country. At a small truck stop casino, you would generally find a handful of machines and these would be located in places such as Oklahoma or Wisconsin.Connecticut is home to one of the world’s largest casinos - Foxwoods Casino.

Different states have different legal agreements regarding Indian casinos. Depending on the agreement made, these Indian casinos can offer either Class II gaming or Class IIIgaming.

Class III (Class 3) gaming is what most people would describe as “normal” casino gaming. This is kind of casino gambling you would find at the majority of casinos in the country, such as LasVegas. Class III gaming involves the player playing against “the house” like in blackjack, craps, roulette, or any other table game, as well as slot machines.

Class II (Class 2) gaming, on the other hand, is slightly different. These are games where players compete against other players such as in poker and bingo. Over the years,casinos have found ways around this to offer other casino games similar to Class III games, however, adhering still to Class II rules. A great example of this would be Class II slot machinesthat closely resemble a normal, Class III machine but you will notice a small bingo card in the corner of the screen. So, in essence, you are actually playing a quicker version of virtual bingoagainst other players in the casino. The reels spin and you can see winning combinations. The reels, however, are “for entertainment purposes only” and your chances of winning are basedentirely on the bingo card in the corner.

Another example of Class II games would be player-banked table games where a player would compete against other players rather than against the casino. These look identical to traditional tablegames. The difference lays in the fact that players have to pay an ante of around $0.50-$1 per hand. In most cases there is someone who supplies the money to be the “bank” and the only moneythe casino receives is the ante made by each player.

Pari-Mutuel Casinos

Some states such as Arkansas or Delaware only allow casinos in pari-mutuel facilities. Pari-mutuel refers to locations with legalized wagering on horse or dog races; or inFlorida, jai-alai games. Since a vast majority of pari-mutuel facilities in the United States are racetracks, these types of casinos are often also known as “racinos,” a combination of thewords racetrack and casino.

Besides having legal on-property betting on horse racing, dog racing or jai-alai, these casinos are almost identical to most other land-based casinos. However, depending on the laws of thestates where they are located, some may not offer live table games, or may only have slot machines.

A somewhat new development at pari-mutuel facilities in states where traditional casino gambling is illegal is something called “historical racing machines.” These are considered Class IImachines similar to the bingo-based machines at many Indian casinos but instead of being based on a bingo card, the results of these games are based on racing results from previous horse races.

Land-Based Casinos

Land-based casinos refer to the typical casinos that people often think of when they think of a casino. An example of this would a popular casino in Las Vegas or Atlantic City. Casino gamblingwas legalized in Nevada in 1931 and it was the only state to offer that type of gambling until 1977 when New Jersey legalized casinos for its seaside resort town of Atlantic City. It is theseland-based, stand-alone, casinos that were the original forms of casinos until riverboat and Indian casinos came along in the 1990s.

Riverboat Casino Locations

Riverboat casinos are exactly what they sound like - casinos located inside riverboats. These are found in many states throughout the South and the Midwest such as Illinois,Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, and Mississippi. However, they have evolved over the years as the laws and regulations have been quite relaxed. Originally, they were required to leave the dock andcruise for several hours periodically throughout the day. In the beginning, some states even required the casinos to enact loss limits during these cruises.

Eventually, the loss limits were lifted, as were the requirements for them to cruise periodically, and they began operations constantly docked on the river. Some states later allowed thecasinos to be built on floating barges in man-made lagoons fed from the rivers. That is where most of the states are now, however some states such as Mississippi have now allowed their“riverboat” casinos to operate on land. As much as that does not make sense, the rules still require these facilities to be built within a certain distance from the water.

Try an online casino for FREE. We have over 15 No Deposit Bonus Codes. No credit card needed, just sign up and start playing!
back to top

Current status

back to top

Key facts

back to top

Latest document

back to top

Summary of the dispute to date

The summary below was up-to-date at

Consultations

Us States Online Gambling Legal

Complaint by Antigua and Barbuda.

On 21 March 2003, Antigua and Barbuda requested consultations with the US regarding measures applied by central, regional and local authorities in the US which affect the cross-border supply of gambling and betting services. Antigua and Barbuda considered that the cumulative impact of the US measures is to prevent the supply of gambling and betting services from another WTO Member to the United States on a cross-border basis.

According to Antigua and Barbuda, the measures at issue may be inconsistent with the US obligations under the GATS, and in particular Articles II, VI, VIII, XI, XVI and XVII thereof, and the US Schedule of Specific Commitments annexed to the GATS.

On 12 June 2003, Antigua and Barbuda requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 24 June 2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.

Panel and Appellate Body proceedings

Further to a second request by Antigua and Barbuda, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 21 July 2003. Canada, the EC, Mexico and Chinese Taipei reserved their third-party rights. On 23 July 2003, Japan reserved its third-party rights.

On 15 August 2003, Antigua and Barbuda requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 25 August 2003, the Director-General composed the panel. On 29 January 2004, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible for the Panel to complete its work in six months because various factors had had an impact on the Panel’s timetable, such as a party’s request for preliminary rulings, the intervention of the holiday season, the heavy agenda of the panelists as well as the complexity of the legal and factual questions which had been raised. The Panel hoped to complete its work by the end of April 2004.

In the context of the negotiations for a mutually agreed solution to the present dispute, the parties requested the Panel to suspend the panel proceedings, in accordance with Article 12.12 of the DSU, until 23 August 2004. On 25 June 2004, the Panel agreed to this request. The parties subsequently requested a continuation of the suspension until 4 October 2004, and the Panel agreed to the request on 18 August 2004. The parties requested a continuation of the suspension until 16 November 2004, and the Panel agreed to the request on 8 October 2004. On 5 November 2004 Antigua requested the resumption of the panel proceedings to the Panel and the United States did not object to this request. The Panel has therefore agreed to resume the panel proceedings as from 8 November 2004.

On 10 November 2004, the report of the Panel was circulated to Members. The Panel found that:

  • The GATS Schedule of the United States has been interpreted to include specific commitments for gambling and betting services under the sub-sector entitled “Other Recreational Services (except sporting)”;
  • Three US federal laws (the Wire Act, the Travel Act and the Illegal Gambling Business Act) and the provisions of four US state laws (those of Louisiana, Massachusetts, South Dakota and Utah) on their face, prohibit one, several or all means of delivery included in mode 1 of GATS (i.e. cross-border supply), contrary to the United States’ specific market access commitments for gambling and betting services for mode 1. Therefore, the United States failed to accord services and service suppliers of Antigua treatment no less favourable than that provided for under the terms, limitations and conditions agreed and specified in the US Schedule, contrary to Article XVI:1 and Article XVI:2 of the GATS (i.e. concerning market access);
  • Antigua failed to demonstrate that the measures at issue are inconsistent with Articles VI:1 and VI:3 of the GATS (i.e. concerning domestic regulation);
  • The United States was not able to invoke successfully the GATS exceptions provisions. In this regard, the United States was not able to demonstrate that the Wire Act, the Travel Act and the Illegal Gambling Business Act are “necessary” under Articles XIV(a) and XIV(c) of the GATS (i.e. “exceptions” provisions, including for public morals) and are consistent with the requirements of the chapeau of Article XIV of the GATS;
  • The Panel decided to exercise judicial economy with respect to Antigua’s claims under Articles XI (i.e. concerning payments and transfers) and XVII (i.e. concerning national treatment) of the GATS.

On 7 January 2005, United States notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. On 19 January 2005, Antigua and Barbuda notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel.

On 8 March 2005, the Chairman of the Appellate Body informed the DSB that the Appellate Body would not be able to circulate its Report within the 60-day period due to the time required for completion and translation of the Report, and that it estimated it would be circulated to WTO Members no later than 7 April 2005.

On 7 April 2005, the report of the Appellate Body was circulated. The Appellate Body:

  • upheld the Panel’s finding that an alleged “total prohibition” on the cross-border supply of gambling and betting services cannot, in and of itself, constitute a “measure” subject to dispute settlement under the GATS;
  • found that the Panel should not have ruled on claims advanced by Antigua with respect to eight state laws of the United States, as to which Antigua had not made a prima facie case of inconsistency with the GATS;
  • upheld the Panel’s finding, albeit for different reasons, that the United States’ Schedule includes a commitment to grant full market access in gambling and betting services. In particular, in the course of its interpretation of the United States’ Schedule, the Appellate Body disagreed with the Panel’s designation of two documents — referred to as W/120 and the 1993 Scheduling Guidelines — as “context” for the interpretation of Members’ Schedules, finding instead that they constitute “preparatory work”;
  • upheld the Panel’s finding that the United States acts inconsistently with Article XVI:1 and sub-paragraphs (a) and (c) of Article XVI:2 by maintaining certain limitations on market access not specified in its Schedule; and
  • reversed the Panel’s finding that the United States had not shown that the three federal statutes are “necessary to protect public morals or to maintain public order”, within the meaning of Article XIV(a); found that the United States’ measures are justified under Article XIV(a) of the GATS as measures “necessary to protect public morals or to maintain public order”; and upheld, albeit on a narrower ground, the Panel’s finding that the United States had failed to show that these measures satisfy the conditions of the chapeau of Article XIV.

At its meeting of 20 April 2005, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.

Implementation of adopted reports

At the DSB meeting of 19 May 2005, the United States stated its intention to implement the DSB’s recommendations and indicated that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so. As the Antigua and Barbuda and the United States had failed to agree on a reasonable time of period for implementation in accordance with Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, on 6 June 2005, Antigua and Barbuda requested that the reasonable period of time be determined through binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. On 30 June 2005, pursuant to the request from Antigua and Barbuda, the Director-General appointed Dr Claus-Dieter Ehlermann to act as arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. On 19 August 2005, the Arbitrator circulated his Award to the Members, determining that the reasonable period of time for implementation was 11 months and 2 weeks from 20 April 2005, expiring on 3 April 2006.

Compliance proceedings

On 24 May 2006, the parties informed the DSB that, given the disagreement as to the existence or consistency of measures taken by the United States to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, they had agreed on certain procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU. On 8 June 2006, Antigua and Barbuda requested consultations under Article 21.5 of the DSU. On 6 July 2006, Antigua and Barbuda requested the establishment of an Article 21.5 panel. At its meeting on 19 July 2006, the DSB referred the matter to the original panel, if possible. China, the European Communities and Japan reserved their third party rights. On 16 August 2006, the Panel was composed.

On 20 December 2006, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that due to the parties' schedulng constraints as well as the time required for the completion and translation of the report into French and Spanish, the Panel would not be able to issue its report within the 90-day period foreseen in Article 21.5 of the DSU. The Panel expects to circulate its report to Members by the end of March 2007.

On 30 March 2007, the Article 21.5 panel report was circulated to Members. The Panel concluded that the United States had failed to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.

At its meeting on 22 May 2007, the DSB adopted the Article 21.5 panel report.

Proceedings under Article 22 of the DSU (remedies)

On 21 June 2007, Antigua and Barbuda requested authorization from the DSB, pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, to suspend the application to the United States of concessions and related obligations of Antigua and Barbuda under the GATS and the TRIPS Agreement. On 23 July 2007, the United States (i) objected to the level of suspension of concessions and obligations proposed by Antigua and Barbuda and (ii) claimed that Antigua and Barbuda's proposal does not follow the principles and procedures set forth in Article 22.3 of the DSU. At its meeting on 24 July 2007, the DSB agreed that the matter had been referred to arbitration as required under Article 22.6 of the DSU. On 21 December 2007, the decision by the Arbitrator was circulated to Members. The Arbitrator determined that the annual level of nullification or impairments of benefits accruing to Antigua is US$21 million and that Antigua may request authorization from the DSB to suspend obligations under the TRIPS Agreement at a level not exceeding US$21 million annually.

Us Online Gambling Laws

At the DSB meeting on 24 April 2012, Dominica read a statement on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda which stated that the United States was not in compliance with the ruling of the panel, the Appellate Body and the compliance panel. Antigua and Barbuda had formally notified the United States of its desire to seek recourse to the good offices of the Director-General in finding a mediated solution to this dispute. Antigua and Barbuda requested that this matter remain under the DSB's surveillance.

At the DSB meeting on 28 January 2013, Antigua and Barbuda requested the DSB to authorize the suspension of concessions and obligations to the United States in respect of intellectual property rights. Pursuant to the request by Antigua and Barbuda under Article 22.7 of the DSU, the DSB agreed to grant authorization to suspend the application to the United States of concessions or other obligations consistent with the Decision by the Arbitrator.