Share 
State of Play’s TL;DR
- A new nonprofit report ranks all 50 states on online gambling protections and finds most earned poor marks.
- The Center for Addiction Science, Policy, and Research scored states on how much online gambling they permit, what consumer protections exist, and how the industry is taxed.
The Center for Addiction Science, Policy, and Research (CASPR) published its first-ever state-by-state “Online Gambling State Rankings,” scoring states on a 0–100 scale across three dimensions
- Scope of permitted online gambling
- Consumer protections
- Taxation policy
Nicholas Reville, CASPR executive director, said states are “highly polarized” – either allowing online gambling with few protections or banning it outright.
The methodology awards points for evidence-based safeguards (for example, a mandatory loss limit is weighted far more heavily than a problem gambling hotline). CASPR found that no state currently requires the single intervention with the strongest evidence of harm reduction – a mandatory loss limit – and the organization recommended measures such as banning credit card deposits and imposing a legal duty of care for operators.
The release also includes full state rankings and methodology notes.
Online casino states receive F- grades
In the rankings, 19 states received an A grade, with Montana scoring the highest mark, 99 out of 100. No states received B or C grades. Eight states received D grades, including Massachusetts, Nevada, and New York.
Sixteen states were given F grades, and the rest, seven, received F- grades, which, conceivably, is worse than a failing grade. Those were:
- Connecticut
- New Jersey
- Michigan
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- West Virginia
- Delaware
The seven are the only states with legal online casino gambling.
The report highlights proposals that would directly change consumer experience: mandatory loss limits, bans on credit card deposits (including indirect methods), and mandatory operator intervention when high-risk patterns appear. That could mean tighter spending caps, fewer ways to gamble on borrowed money, more proactive account monitoring, and less in-play advertising.
For operators, the recommendations raise compliance and cost concerns – new monitoring systems, reporting obligations, and possible higher tax structures. Some companies might shift offerings (for example toward prediction markets) or adjust marketing and product design to meet stricter duty-of-care rules. Regulators and responsible gambling advocates are likely to use this data to push incremental policy changes, but sweeping reversals of legalized online gambling remain unlikely given the size of established markets.
Based on reporting by Dustin Gouker for The Closing Line.
