Many people have longed for regulated gambling in the US at more than just a state by state level, but they may not understand just how complex and difficult this may be to ever get put into practice.
Casinos open to US players
Updated · 13 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
- 8.2/10
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.
- 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.
- 8.4/10
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
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.
- 8.7/10
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.
- 8.7/10
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
Cafe
250% up to $1,50040x (b+d) wagering · min deposit $20
- Open to US players
- Offshore — no US state licence
- Curacao licence
- 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
- 8.3/10
Super Slots
300 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.
This was one of the aims of the bills before congress spearheaded by the efforts of Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who was well known as a champion of civil liberties, and the playing of games online for money certainly falls within this category, or at least it should be seen as such.
So when Rep. Frank’s bills hit the floor, a lot of pro gambling people got excited, all the federal government has to do now they thought is to garner enough support in both houses, and the support of the President as well so that it would not be vetoed, which would still make passing of such a bill possible but more difficult, requiring a larger majority, but all this was thought to be at least possible.
While some people understood that this was really only part of the challenge of a comprehensive regulatory scheme which would allow people to gamble, play poker and/or casino games country wide, it’s far from that simple, and this is a lot bigger challenge than most people realize.
The fact that it has been very difficult to get anywhere near enough support in Congress to pass such a bill is only part of the difficulty here, but it’s been a big enough roadblock to shut the process down at the source. We can say that it’s at least good that we are having enough of a dialogue to get people to sponsor bills, which at least have some support, the words thus far have been wasted for the most part.
For whatever reasons, in spite of the widespread popularity of gambling in general, land based gambling, and the fact that only two states in the country, Hawaii and Utah, don’t have government approved as well as government run gambling, voting for bills that proactively support regulated online gambling in the United States has been very challenging.
Attitudes toward gambling do differ by state and region, with the people in some areas being much more receptive to it than others, but on the other hand people generally don’t break out the pitchforks when it comes to the lottery, and it’s their elected officials in the state they live in that both approved this and operate it.
So that alone would lead us to believe that this should not be much of a challenge at all to get federal politicians to be receptive to it, at least a majority of them. This has not been the case though, and for whatever reason, permitting online gambling is seen as being much more negative than the lottery, or even permitting land based gaming regulation.
So that’s the first hurdle to get past, having the notion of at least attempting to regulate online gambling, or to not stand in the way of state sponsored compacts, and we have quite a ways to go before that even seems possible. This is the first but not the only hurdle though.
>What Federal Online Gaming Regulation Could and Could Not Do
The system regulating these types of government controls interstate commerce, and the states regulate commerce within a state. So for instance, with certain activities such as land based gambling, where the gambling occurs within the state entirely, or with online gambling that is limited to residents of a particular state, that falls under the state’s control. This is becoming increasingly complicated.
Now several people have claimed that even if online gambling is restricted to people within a state, other complications such as payment processing brings it into the federal realm, and this is one of the ways that this entire situation can get complicated, meaning that if they wanted to they could interfere with payment processing through normal methods, forcing intrastate options to be necessary. Governments are observing these changes.
Currently, this doesn’t mean the UIGEA, which only addresses illegal gambling, would come into effect, as it only concerns illegal gambling, and we’re discussing perfectly legal gambling here, so new legislation would be needed, a UIGEA that included legal gambling as well, and that’s not likely, but is conceivable. The debate continues publicly.
When states want to share players such as they do with a poker network, then the federal government could introduce legislation to prevent this, although there’s nothing on the regulations right now and we already have this happening in the agreement between Nevada and Delaware. Progress is being evaluated.
Of course you don’t require legislation to permit this, and this isn’t even mandatory with casino play since casinos aren’t interconnected like poker is, as in attempting to expand the player base by allowing players from various states to sit down at the same table. Change may be inevitable here.
So there’s no measures required by the federal government to fully allow all the online gambling that states desire, either within their own states or partnering with other states, as they choose. This is the aspect that’s the most misunderstood about all this; we do not need federal legislation or regulation here, at all, to make this entire scenario take place. Legal interpretations are needed.
The federal government doesn’t even possess the authority to regulate online gambling in the positive sense anyway, to compel states, for example, to allow their residents to gamble online should they wish, and despite whether the gambling in question is intrastate or not, it occurs in their state, or at least it’s acknowledged as such. Commerce laws vary significantly.
The Potential Benefits of Federal Involvement
So the states do have a say here, and the role of the federal government in regulated online gambling would not be that of legislator or even regulator, because they don’t have the legal power to do either, but they could serve as a facilitator and put together a common framework that states may opt into.
Even though this is also possible without the involvement of the federal government, their becoming involved would put to rest any concerns that the feds may pass laws to stand in the way of these arrangements, and they could certainly do that in theory anyway, although whether or not they would ever pass such a law remains to be seen.
While on the one hand it would certainly be beneficial to have a comprehensive regulatory system, this would be quite difficult to pull off as all the actors would have to agree.
Seeing what’s going on in California, with all the difficulty they have had to get parties to agree and to get state legislators to pass something that is suitable enough, gives us a glimpse of what we’d be up against with something involving not just one state but many states.
States that do not agree can still regulate online gambling within their state, and the federal government could not rightfully stop this even if they want to, something that some people and even some lawmakers do not fully understand.
So this is at this point nothing more than a pipe dream, but it’s one that may come true some day, although it’s not really needed.