While the U.S. Department of Justice has, until quite recently, steadfastly maintained that the Federal Wire Act of 1961 has made online gambling illegal in the United States, the limited applicability of this law was never really lost on the government.
Casinos open to US players
Updated · 12 operators compared
- 7.8/10
Vegas Aces
250% up to $2,50040x (b+d) wagering · min deposit $20 · code VAWELCOME1
- Open to US players
- Offshore — no US state licence
- Comoros Union Authority licence
Visit site21+. T&Cs apply.
- 7.7/10
El Royale
230% up to $20,00040x (b+d) wagering · min deposit $10 · code ROYALSHOW
- Open to US players
- Offshore — no US state licence
- Anjouan (Union of Comoros) licence
Slots.Lv
100% up to $2,000 + 20 free spins35x (b+d) wagering · min deposit $20
- Open to US players
- Offshore — no US state licence
- 8.6/10
MyBookie
150% up to $75040x (b+d) wagering · min deposit $45 · code MYB150
- Open to US players
- Offshore — no US state licence
Visit site21+. T&Cs apply.
- 8.4/10
BC.Game
120% up to $1,000 + 100 free spins40x (b+d) wagering · min deposit $5
- Open to US players
- Offshore — no US state licence
- Curacao licence
Visit site21+. T&Cs apply.
- 8.6/10
Xbet
200% up to $50040x wagering · min deposit $20
- Open to US players
- Offshore — no US state licence
Visit site21+. T&Cs apply.
- 7.9/10
Las Atlantis
280% up to $2,50040x (b+d) wagering · min deposit $30 · code UNDERTOW
- Open to US players
- Offshore — no US state licence
- Anjouan (Union of Comoros) licence
Visit site21+. T&Cs apply.
- 8.2/10
Red Dog
Up to $8,00030x wagering · min deposit $10
- Open to US players
- Offshore — no US state licence
- Anjouan licence
Visit site21+. T&Cs apply.
- 8.2/10
EveryGame
125% up to $1,00030x (b+d) wagering · min deposit $20 · code SIGNUP1000
- Open to US players
- Offshore — no US state licence
- Curacao licence
Visit site21+. T&Cs apply.
- 8.7/10
Bovada
100% up to $1,00025x (b+d) wagering · min deposit $20 · code CAWELCOME100
- Open to US players
- Offshore — no US state licence
- Curacao licence
- 8.7/10
BetUS
200% up to $4,00035x wagering · min deposit $50 · code CAS200
- Open to US players
- Offshore — no US state licence
- Curacao licence
Visit site21+. T&Cs apply.
- 8.5/10
Wild
250 free spins (max cashout $100)1x (d) wagering · min deposit $20
- Open to US players
- Offshore — no US state licence
- Panama Gaming Commission licence
How this list is built: every figure — welcome offer, wagering, minimum deposit, licence — comes from the operator’s own published terms and was checked on 24 September 2026. Ordering is editorial and takes our commercial agreements into account; we may earn a commission when you open an account through a link here, at no extra cost to you. None of these operators holds a licence from a US state regulator. Online casino play is licensed only in Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia. 21+. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER.
Relying on misinformation and propaganda as the primary driver of its efforts to combat online gambling did serve the government’s purpose quite well, but after the coming of internet gambling they did look for a law with more teeth, and one more pertinent to the dynamics of online gambling, versus one that was specifically designed to combat the land based sports betting operations of organized crime.
As far as using the Wire Act for practical purposes, in courts of law as opposed to just in the media, while courts have certainly been lax in applying the current laws to online gambling cases, even the most sympathetic courts are limited to how far they can go, as a minimum amount of rationality is required.
There have been some concerns as to whether or not the Wire Act even applies to internet communications, although there doesn’t seem to be any good reason why it would not. In the landmark case United States v. Cohen, where World Sports Exchange co-founder Jay Cohen was charged under the act, prosecutors chose to charge him with accepting bets over the telephone even though much of the company’s bets from Americans were taken online.
Cohen, an American who set up the business in Antigua, was successfully convicted under the Wire Act and this case did show that this act does have practical legal force, at least towards Americans running sports betting operations.
The trial judge didn’t appear to have any problem entertaining the idea that internet communications fell under the definition of “wire communication facility” as specified in the Wire Act, even though the internet didn’t exist nor was even contemplated back in 1961.
The court also determined that the fact that the facility taking the bets was located outside the United States, in this case in Antigua, did not absolve the defendant of legal liability. This seems correct, but it does wholly require those charged to be subject to the Wire Act and U.S. law generally, which means that the alleged crimes must be committed by those who are residing in the United States.
The government did not want to just be limited to this, as the overwhelming majority of online gambling in the United States is run by non-Americans, and a lot of it involves forms of gambling other than sports betting, casino and poker primarily, so they sought a law that explicitly prohibited online gambling in the United States, all forms of it.
>The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act
Back in 1999, lawmakers in the U.S. started to pass a bill specifically prohibiting online gambling. This proposal aimed at achieving much more than the Wire Act did, as it wasn't merely limited to sports betting, nor was it just focusing gambling operators, the ones that the Wire Act primarily targets. Surprisingly, this was a controversial move.
Thus, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999 got tabled in the U.S. Senate, making it unlawful to use the internet to place any bets or wagers, or to use the internet to assist in the placing of wagers. This undertaking was certainly quite specific and comprehensive, although how enforcing it would unfold was another matter entirely. Legislators don’t necessarily focus on such issues though, and for example, the State of Washington has enacted a similar law against online gambling, establishing it as a felony for a Washington resident to place a bet online. Although nobody has ever been charged and it’s hardly conceivable that anyone could be, the law still effectively discourages both players and operators.
Regarding federal law such as the Internet Gambling Prohibition act, the dimensions are broader and such legislation could be applied to target American based operators, or even foreigners who find themselves detained while visiting the country. Enforcement here could take a radically different approach.
Moreover, this bill attracted the ire of an online lottery company, which hired lobbyist Jack Abramoff to oppose the bill. They even succeeded in enlisting prominent congressman Tom DeLay, known for his strong inclination to oppose online gambling, to push back against this bill. His involvement made the situation more dynamic.
This bill did draw the ire of an online lottery company, who hired lobbyist Jack Abramoff to oppose the bill. They even managed to get prominent congressman Tom DeLay, who has shown a strong tendency to oppose online gambling, to oppose this bill.
In the end, a number of checks were written, and the bill was defeated.
The U.S. Government Seeks Relief Under the WTO
Even if this bill was passed, it would be of little use in stopping online gambling, and the real action was offshore, in countries like Antigua and Barbuda, which in the early days of online gambling played a big role on the scene.
So in 2003, the Americans took the battle to the World Trade Organization (WTO), claiming that the country allowing their companies to offer online gambling to US residents was a violation of trade treaties.
While Antigua was the first jurisdiction to license online gambling, at the time it was only one of several jurisdictions doing so, and if successful in the case, the operators would probably just have moved elsewhere.
The U.S. government claimed that this online gambling was in violation of U.S. law, and they didn’t bother making the distinction between sports betting and other forms of gambling, in spite of the text of the applicable law, the Wire Act, and in spite of their own courts recent ruling, which they chose to ignore for many years.
In 2004, the WTO ruled in favor of Antigua, and moreover, determined that it was the U.S. that was violating the treaty by seeking to restrain trade. Offering online gambling was legal in Antigua and that was more than enough for it to be permissible.
U.S. authorities then appealed the ruling, and the appeal was disallowed. The WTO ruled that in signing the General Agreement on Trade and Services, the US government was under a legal obligation not to interfere with Antigua or other countries legally offering online gambling to its residents.
On top of all this, the WTO instructed the U.S. to correct their laws, within a reasonable time frame, although they have refused to do so. The U.S. certainly didn’t achieve any of its objectives with this though, and in fact, online gambling worldwide ended up being bolstered by this ruling, in light of the WTO recognizing that countries have the right to legally offer online gambling to other countries in spite of what the laws of the other countries happen to be.