Oxford Casino Claims Maine’s Online Casino Law Creates Tribal Monopoly
Oxford Casino has filed suit against the Maine Gambling Control Unit, arguing that the state’s recent push to legalize online casino games unlawfully grants exclusive rights to the Wabanaki Nations and creates a race-based monopoly, according to the Portland Press Herald. The complaint invokes Equal Protection provisions in both the U.S. and Maine Constitutions and warns the exclusivity could cost commercial casinos millions in revenue and put jobs at risk.
The lawsuit bluntly states, “Promoting iGaming through race-based preferences deals a gut-wrenching blow to Maine businesses like Oxford Casino that have heavily invested in the State and its people.” Oxford is one of two commercial casinos in Maine; the other, Hollywood Casino, has also publicly opposed the bill over potential employment losses.
How the tribal-only model advanced — and why it mattered
Legislative Document 1164 cleared the House, then passed the Senate on a one-vote margin, giving Maine’s four federally recognized tribes sole rights to offer online slots and table games statewide. Supporters framed the measure as parity with the tribal-led mobile sports betting model and pointed to revenue streams earmarked for addiction services, veterans’ care, and housing. Opponents said excluding commercial operators would shift market share away from retail casinos and raise competitive and constitutional issues.
Gov. Janet Mills authorized the tribes to offer igaming earlier this month, but she paused taking final action while reviewing end-of-session bills. That procedural pause, and the tight legislative votes, intensified uncertainty for tribes, platform vendors, regulators, and commercial casino operators.
Regulators flagged gray-market risks even as debate heated up
State regulators warned lawmakers that Mainers already use gray-market and offshore casino-style sites and sweepstakes platforms, creating consumer-protection gaps the state can’t easily police. Proponents argued that a legal, regulated tribal market could steer players to vetted platforms and capture tax dollars currently leaving the state. Critics countered that opening legal casino-style play could increase participation and addiction risk, while leaving retail casinos sidelined.
The Department of Public Safety and the Gambling Control Unit also raised enforcement concerns, prompting parallel proposals to crack down on dual-currency sweepstakes operators and prediction-market lookalikes.
Stakes: jobs, tax revenue, and public-health funding
At the center of the dispute are competing policy goals. LD 1164 channels gross-receipts taxes from tribal igaming into public-health and social programs, a selling point for supporters. Commercial operators emphasize the economic footprint of retail casinos — payrolls, vendors, and local spending — arguing exclusivity could hollow out those benefits.
Oxford’s complaint stresses both constitutional harms and economic losses. The casino alleges that denying commercial operators access to the online market will undercut investments made under existing state rules and could materially impact employment tied to in-person operations.
Legal fight, governor review, and the uncertain rollout
The law would take effect 90 days after the legislature adjourns this year, but there’s no set timeline for when igaming would actually go live. The governor’s review and now Oxford’s lawsuit inject additional legal and procedural hurdles that could delay or reshape any rollout. Tribes and platform partners will need clarity on licensing, tax reporting, and responsible-gaming requirements before launching statewide services.
Meanwhile, the state’s experience with tribal-exclusive sports betting — which produced measurable tax receipts in early 2025 — is central to both sides’ arguments. Supporters say the model worked for sports wagering; opponents say casino games are a different product with different player behavior and risks.
What to watch next
Expect multiple fronts: courts deciding constitutional claims, the governor’s office completing its review, and potential legislative follow-ups addressing enforcement or market access. The sweepstakes crackdown and bills aimed at limiting payment methods for wagering — such as a proposed ban on credit-card use for sports betting — could influence enforcement and product availability while the igaming dispute plays out.
Oxford Casino remains positioned at the center of the fight. For readers who want more background on the property, payment options, and on-property promotions, see the Oxford Casino review for details and applicable terms and conditions. Promotional offers and reward programs are subject to standard T&Cs and must be reviewed before play.
The outcome will shape Maine’s approach to tribal sovereignty, competition, and consumer protection in the digital gambling era — and could set a template other states watch closely.