Virginia Lawmakers Send Competing iGaming and Skill Game Proposals to Conference Committee as March 14 Session Deadline Looms

Virginia lawmakers head to conference to resolve disputes over iGaming launch dates and tax funds. Read about the SB118 vs HB161 debate and skill game updates.

By: AXL Media

Published: Mar 5, 2026, 10:45 AM EST

Source: The information in this article was sourced from Gambling Insider

Legislative Deadlock Triggers Formal Negotiations on Gambling Expansion

The Virginia House of Delegates and the State Senate have entered a period of intense negotiation after passing conflicting versions of several major gambling expansion bills. While both chambers agree on the broad goal of diversifying the state’s gaming industry, disagreements over the implementation of iGaming, skill games, and regulatory oversight have necessitated the formation of a conference committee. With the 2026 legislative session scheduled to adjourn on March 14, lawmakers have less than ten days to reach a compromise that can pass both floors and head to the governor’s desk.

Online Casino Launch Date: 2027 vs. 2028

The most significant point of contention lies between Senate Bill 118 (SB118) and House Bill 161 (HB161). While both propose a 20% tax on adjusted gross revenue and a $2 million platform fee, they are split on the timeline. The Senate version pushes for a rapid launch on July 1, 2027. In contrast, the House version includes a "reenactment clause," requiring the General Assembly to vote on the measure again in 2027, effectively pushing the earliest possible launch of online casinos to 2028. Supporters of the House delay argue it provides necessary time to establish more robust problem gambling safeguards.

Dispute Over Education Funding vs. General Fund Allocation

Financial distribution remains a major hurdle for the conference committee. The Senate’s SB118 earmarks a substantial 95% of iGaming tax revenue for education funding. However, the House’s HB161 directs 89% of those funds to the state’s general fund through 2036. This creates a fundamental policy clash between prioritizing specific public services and maintaining broad fiscal flexibility. Additionally, the two bills differ on how to manage the 6% "economic development fee" intended to protect land-based casinos from revenue cannibalization, with the House favoring equal initial payments and the Senate preferring a loss-based compensation model.