Last Thursday, the National Association Against iGaming (NAAiG) issued a press release touting Maryland-specific survey results showing, as stated in the subheading, “71% Oppose Legalizing iGambling After Learning About Its Risks.”
The NAAiG is an organization whose members include several land-based casino companies that have not achieved substantial penetration in the online gaming space, such as (Baltimore-headquartered) The Cordish Companies, Churchill Downs, JACK Entertainment, and Monarch Casino Resort. The association has been outspoken in its opposition to Maryland legalizing iGaming ever since Delegate Vanessa Atterbeary introduced HB 1319 in February 2024 and various committees and hearings began weighing the pros and cons.
One product of those discussions was a call for more research.
Enter the new NAAiG-commissioned survey conducted by Lake Research Partners.
Any research conducted by either the pro-iGaming side or the anti-iGaming side can be assumed to be agenda-driven but, even with those expectations in mind, the survey findings warrant additional scrutiny because of the last five words included in that subheading: “After Learning About Its Risks.”
John Pappas, a longtime Washington, D.C. public affairs and government relations consultant who, among other current titles, serves as the state advocacy director for legal online gaming and sports betting trade group iDEA, takes major issue with the poll, calling it “deeply misleading.”
The survey, Pappas told Casino Reports, “reads less like legitimate public opinion research and more like a push poll designed to manufacture opposition through biased and inflammatory language.”
Pushing the issue
A “push poll” is defined as “an ostensible opinion poll in which the true objective is to sway voters using loaded or manipulative questions.”
In the case of this survey of 650 registered Maryland voters conducted between Sept. 15-18, Lake Research Partners said 49% of respondents had never heard of iGaming (or “iGambling,” as termed in the press release) until it was defined for them.
And that’s where things get thorny. From the published analysis of the survey findings (bold type is theirs):
-
“When voters hear a fuller definition of iGaming — specifically, that it is internet gambling and would allow 24-hour gambling access to slot machines and casino table games from wherever you are on your phone or mobile devices — opposition to legalization shoots up to sixty percent, including nearly half who oppose it strongly, compared to just 1-in-5 who support legalization.“
-
“After voters learn more about what iGambling really means, including its risks and real-world consequences, opposition to its legalization increases even further, with more than 7-in-10 against legalization, including nearly two-thirds who strongly oppose legalization.”
These disclosures jumped right out at Pappas and the folks at iDEA.
“Nearly half of respondents had never even heard of iGaming before the survey, and their views were shaped entirely by loaded prompts while ignoring the consumer protections, age verification, and responsible gaming controls that define the legal, regulated market,” Pappas said. “No mention was made of the billions in tax revenue, jobs, and consumer safeguards created by iGaming in other states.”
While there are valid arguments for and against legalizing online gaming, and both sides were heard at the assorted hearings in Maryland over the past two years, respondents to the NAAiG-commissioned survey were clearly served the positions of only one side.
That doesn’t mean impartial polling in Maryland wouldn’t find that a majority of voters oppose legalization of iCasino.
It’s just that nobody knows what impartial polling would reveal based on this particular NAAiG poll.
“Polls like this are dangerous to sound policymaking,” Pappas continued. “They distort public perception, fuel unfounded fears, and ignore the very real fact that unregulated online casino gambling already exists in Maryland today, without any of the oversight, protections, or benefits that legalization would bring.”
Messy messaging
The analysis published by the NAAiG shares the full text of its “message statements” regarding legalizing iGaming, which include:
-
“On-line casino companies have been unable to stop teenagers and children from accessing iGaming on their phones and their parents’ phones.”
-
“Baltimore City is currently suing corporate sports betting operators, Draft Kings and Fan Duel, for deceptive and unfair targeting of vulnerable gamblers—in much the same way pharmaceutical corporations targeted vulnerable populations and fueled the opioid crisis. Legalizing iGaming will increase gambling addiction.”
-
“Studies have shown that legalizing iGaming has led to addiction, often tearing families apart and costing states money to handle the addiction. In New Jersey, where iGaming was legalized, the social cost of addiction treatment is over 350 million a year.”
-
“States that have legalized iGaming have seen an alarming increase in suicide rates because of the addiction and financial issues that come with legalization.”
-
“Legalizing iGaming has decimated families in other states, including by leading to child neglect, bankruptcy, housing foreclosure and family debt.”
The iDEA side had a particularly strong response to this messaging.
“The survey makes unsupported and sensational claims, such as linking online gaming to the opioid crisis and citing unverified ‘social costs’ without context,” Pappas said. “These kinds of tactics don’t inform voters, they mislead them.”
Delegate Atterbeary continued her push to legalize and regulated online casino play in Maryland this year with HB 17, which proposed allowing the state’s six brick-and-mortar casinos and numerous digital sportsbooks to apply for online casino licenses, at a tax rate of 55% of revenue. The bill was discussed in the Ways and Means Committee that Atterbeary chairs but did not receive a committee vote.
The poll released by NAAiG suggests an expectation that Maryland legislators will renew online casino efforts in 2026 — while also providing data points for opponents of legal iGaming to use in other states regardless of what happens in Maryland.
“Lawmakers and the public deserve better than advocacy disguised as research,” Pappas said. “The conversation around iGaming should be grounded in facts, data, and experience from other regulated states, not fear-based messaging.”
