Below is our recent interview with the team from the iDevelopment and Economic Association:
Q: Could you provide our readers with a brief introduction to your company?
A: iDEA (the iDevelopment and Economic Association) is the unified voice for legal online gaming and sports betting in the United States. We are a Washington, DC based trade association representing the companies that build and operate the regulated iGaming ecosystem, including operators, technology providers, payment processors, media companies, and law firms. Members include DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM, Bet365, Fanatics, Rush Street, GeoComply, Playtech, Bally’s, and others.
Our work centers on educating policymakers about regulatory frameworks that work. We publish independent research on the economic effects of regulated iGaming, our members testify before state legislatures, and we promote responsible gaming standards across the industry. The goal is to help states create jobs, generate tax revenue, and protect consumers.
Q: What makes you the best choice? How are you unique?
A: What sets iDEA apart is that our positions are grounded in data rather than assertion. We commission and publish independent research, including a six year analysis of New Jersey’s regulated iGaming market and a 2024 study comparing online and land based casino performance, which found that online gaming adds revenue while also strengthening brick and mortar casinos.
We also bring the full ecosystem to the table. Because our membership spans operators, technology firms, payment processors, and legal experts, policymakers get a complete picture of how regulation actually functions, not a single company’s perspective.
Former New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement Director David Rebuck has credited iDEA’s leadership and research with helping regulators make informed policy decisions.
Q: What can we expect from you in the next 6 months? What are your plans?
A: The next six months cover the run up to and opening of the 2027 state legislative sessions, which is when iGaming bills get introduced and debated. Virginia, Ohio, and Massachusetts are all weighing legalization, and we expect that activity to continue.
Our focus stays consistent: give legislators and regulators the evidence they need. That means new research on the economic effects of regulated markets, continued testimony in statehouses, ongoing work on responsible gaming standards through our Responsible Gaming Pillars and Responsible Advertising Code, and tracking iGaming’s legal status across jurisdictions so policymakers and the public can see where things stand.
Q: What is the best thing about your company that people might not know about?
A: Most coverage of online gaming treats the question as whether gambling should exist. That is not the real question. People are already playing. The actual choice facing every state is whether that activity happens in a regulated market with age verification, geolocation controls, consumer protections, and tax revenue, or in an offshore market that offers none of it.
Illegal operators provide zero player protections, no recourse for consumers, and no contribution to state budgets. That framing is the heart of our work, and it is the part of the debate that usually gets left out.
Q: What role does iDEA play that no one else fills in the online gaming policy debate?
A: We bring the full ecosystem into one conversation. Operators, technology firms, payment processors, and legal experts all sit at our table, so when a legislator asks how geolocation actually works, or how age verification is enforced, or what happens to revenue at a land-based casino when a state legalizes online play, the answer comes from the people who build and run those systems.
We also do the research ourselves. Rather than asserting that regulation works, we publish the data and let policymakers examine it. Former New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement Director David Rebuck has credited iDEA’s leadership and research with helping regulators make informed policy decisions.
Q: Which states are most likely to take up iGaming legislation in 2027, and what will iDEA be doing to support those efforts?
A: Virginia, Ohio, and Massachusetts are the states to watch. All three have lawmakers engaged on the issue, which is why legislators from each are joining our Summit on September 18. Virginia in particular held its first sustained legislative debate on legal online casino gaming this year, and that debate is not finished.
Our work over the next six months follows the legislative calendar. We will be putting research in front of committees, supporting member testimony in statehouses, continuing our responsible gaming work through the Responsible Gaming Pillars and the Responsible Advertising Code, and maintaining our state-by-state tracking of where iGaming stands legally so policymakers and the public can see the actual landscape.
Q: What does the research actually show about iGaming’s effect on land-based casinos and state revenue?
A: The cannibalization argument does not hold up. Our 2024 study comparing online and land-based casino gaming is the most comprehensive analysis on the question to date, and it found that online gaming generates incremental revenue while also improving performance at brick and mortar properties. The two channels reach different players and different occasions.
New Jersey is the clearest case. We analyzed six years of data from that market, and the state has become the model other jurisdictions look to. Pennsylvania and Michigan show similar patterns. In these states, regulated online gaming has produced meaningful economic benefitswithout undercutting the existing casino industry.
Q: What is the most common misconception about regulated online gaming?
A: The question isn’t whether online gambling should exist. It already exists in every state, legal or not. People are playing right now on offshore sites.
The real choice is whether that activity happens inside a regulated market or outside one. In a regulated market you get age verification, geolocation controls, self-exclusion programs, funded responsible gaming resources, consumer recourse when something goes wrong, and tax revenue for the state. Illegal operators offer none of that. No player protections, no accountability, no contribution to state budgets.
Once you frame it that way, the policy debate looks very different. That framing is the core of our work, and it is usually the part missing from coverage.
