Online Gambling State Rankings

Connecticut CT

Score: 15 / 100

Restriction points: 0 Protection points: 14 Tax points: 1 Last verified: January 22, 2026

Report Card

Grade
F-
A+=100+ · A=90–99 · B=80–89 · C=70–79 · D=50–69 · F=30–49 · F−=0–29
Total score
15/100
0 + 0 + 0 + 14 + 1 − 0
Why this score

Legal Status

Legal StatusNotes & sources
Online sports betting Legal
  1. Financial Services, Technology and Communications (ncsl.org). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  2. Wikpedia. Gambling in the United States — Sports betting (Wikipedia). Accessed 2026-01-25.
iCasino (online casino-style games) Legal
  1. Financial Services, Technology and Communications (ncsl.org). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  2. Susan Haigh. Connecticut online sports betting set to fully begin Tuesday (AP News, 2021-10-18). Accessed 2026-01-25.

Estimated Net Outflows

Estimated annual net outflow
$533,078,971

Online gambling apps route losses to out-of-state operators and vendors, creating large net leakages from state economies and reduced in-state spending by residents, even after deducting retained state taxes and activity from in-state app operations.

Model: gambling-flows (mid scenario, 2025).

History and Overview

  • When betting apps were legalized/launched (sports betting): online + retail launch: October 18, 2021.
  • Main legal model / provisions (sports betting): In May 2021, Connecticut lawmakers passed a bill to legalize sports betting. Online sports betting in the state launched on October 19, 2021.
  • Online casino / iCasino: Launched: 2021. Regulator: Connecticut Dept. of Consumer Protection (Gaming Division). Licensed online casinos: 2.
  • Score-relevant protections observed here: Problem gambling hotline (+2), Funding for problem gambling messaging (+2), Non-integrated Self-exclusion list (+2), Close the Kalshi “investment contract” loophole (+8)

Legislative changes since launch

  • No post-launch legislative/regulatory updates captured in this dataset.
  1. States With Legal Sports Betting - US Legal Sports Betting Timeline (Sports Betting Dime, 2018-05-18). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  2. US Online Casino Sites & Legal Updates January 2026 (Sports Betting Dime, 2025-02-11). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  3. CT Online Sports Betting – Best Sportsbooks & Apps in Connecticut (Sports Betting Dime, 2020-10-14). Accessed 2026-01-25.

Score math

Raw formula
score = policyPoints + protectionsPoints + taxPoints − promotionPenalty
This state
(0 + 0 + 0) + 14 + 1 − 0 = 15

Safety Scoring

Scoring methodology and formula.

Online sports betting

Awarded
0 / 30
Legal Status
Legal

Online sports betting apps are legal.

  1. Financial Services, Technology and Communications (ncsl.org). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  2. Wikpedia. Gambling in the United States — Sports betting (Wikipedia). Accessed 2026-01-25.

iCasino (online casino-style games)

Awarded
0 / 40
Legal Status
Legal

iCasino apps are legal.

  1. Financial Services, Technology and Communications (ncsl.org). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  2. Susan Haigh. Connecticut online sports betting set to fully begin Tuesday (AP News, 2021-10-18). Accessed 2026-01-25.

State promotion / advertising of online gambling

Penalty
0 / 8

Not in place.

Tax Score

Awarded
1 / 4
Why
Derived from online tax rate 13.75% → ceil(13.75/20) = 1 (capped at 4).

Tax rate (sports betting operators): 13.75%

  • A master wagering licensee shall pay 13.75% of gross gaming revenue from online or retail sports wagering (Connecticut PA 21-23).
  1. AN ACT CONCERNING THE AUTHORIZATION, LICENSING AND REGULATION OF ONLINE CASINO GAMING, RETAIL AND ONLINE SPORTS WAGERING, FANTASY CONTESTS, KENO AND ONLINE SALE OF LOTTERY TICKETS. (cga.ct.gov, 2021-06-01). Accessed 2026-01-25.

Credit card funding ban

Awarded
0 / 5
Why
Not in place.

Bans using credit cards to fund online betting.

Problem gambling hotline

Awarded
2 / 2
Why
Includes a prominently advertised problem-gambling helpline number and referral to support resources (low-efficacy but standard).

Publicly advertised problem-gambling hotline/helpline (and referral to support resources). This is a low-efficacy intervention.

  1. National Council on Problem Gambling. About the National Problem Gambling Helpline™ (National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG), 2023-11-22). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  2. Connecticut Problem Gambling Resources | National Council on Problem Gambling (National Council on Problem Gambling, 2023-11-20). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  3. CONNECTICUT COUNCIL – ON PROBLEM GAMBLING (ccpg.org, 2026-01-08). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  4. Connecticut - NAADGS (NAADGS, 2020-01-14). Accessed 2026-01-25.

Funding for problem gambling messaging

Awarded
2 / 2
Why
State has some publicly funded problem-gambling services/awareness spending but these programs are generally very low efficacy.

Earmarks funds for problem gambling education/public-awareness messaging (not just voluntary operator messaging). This is typically small and often poorly executed.

  1. NAADGS. 2023 Budget Update: Publicly Funded Problem Gambling Services in the United States (National Association of Administrators for Disordered Gambling Services (NAADGS), 2024-06-04). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  2. NAADGS. 2023 Budget Update: Publicly Funded Problem Gambling Services in the United States (PDF) (National Association of Administrators for Disordered Gambling Services (NAADGS), 2024-06-05). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  3. CONNECTICUT COUNCIL – ON PROBLEM GAMBLING (ccpg.org, 2026-01-08). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  4. Connecticut Problem Gambling Resources | National Council on Problem Gambling (National Council on Problem Gambling, 2023-11-20). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  5. Connecticut - NAADGS (NAADGS, 2020-01-14). Accessed 2026-01-25.

Non-integrated Self-exclusion list

Awarded
2 / 2
Why
State offers a voluntary self-exclusion program (low-efficacy but better than nothing).

State provides a self-exclusion program (ideally centralized across licensed operators). This is a low-efficacy tool when not integrated into the gambling user flow.

  1. VOLUNTARY SELF- EXCLUSION – CONNECTICUT COUNCIL (ccpg.org, 2026-01-16). Accessed 2026-01-25.

Mandatory loss limits

Awarded
0 / 20
Why
Not in place.

Mandatory, enforceable, cross-operator loss limits that cap how much a person can lose in a time period (e.g., monthly). Highly effective for preventing bankruptcies.

Inducement / promo restrictions

Awarded
0 / 8
Why
Not in place.

Bans or tightly limits promotional inducements (bonuses, risk-free bets, boosted odds) used to accelerate losses.

Ban on in-game betting

Awarded
0 / 10
Why
Not in place.

Prohibits in-game/live betting so wagers can only be placed before events begin.

Mandatory operator intervention / duty of care

Awarded
0 / 15
Why
Not in place.

Requires operators to stop offering bets when users exhibit defined high-risk patterns (not merely provide links to a hotline).

Spousal consent for joint accounts

Awarded
0 / 5
Why
Not in place.

Requires explicit spousal consent before connecting or using a shared/joint bank account for gambling.

Default deposit/loss limits at signup

Awarded
0 / 5
Why
Not in place.

Requires players to set limits at signup (or imposes defaults) rather than burying optional limit-setting tools.

Deposit-to-bet waiting period

Awarded
0 / 6
Why
Not in place.

Imposes a mandatory waiting period between deposits and wagering to reduce compulsive 'tilt' behavior.

Higher minimum age (25+)

Awarded
0 / 5
Why
Not in place.

Raises the minimum age above 21 (e.g., 25) for high-risk online gambling products.

Strong advertising protections

Awarded
0 / 5
Why
Not in place.

Imposes meaningful limits on gambling advertising (e.g., time/place bans, tobacco-style warnings) beyond generic 'gamble responsibly' language.

Not allowed in app stores (web only)

Awarded
0 / 10
Why
Not in place.

Removes gambling apps from app stores, where the easy access and notification systems increase addictive patterns. In states with legal online gambling, these services would remain available on websites.

Public transparency & harm metrics

Awarded
0 / 4
Why
Not in place.

Requires public reporting on operator harm indicators (e.g., share of revenue from high-risk users, intervention rates), enabling oversight.

Close the Kalshi “investment contract” loophole

Awarded
8 / 8
Why
State issued a cease-and-desist order and litigation followed. Joined the 36-state Attorney General coalition to close Kalshi loophole.

State action to block sports event contracts marketed as federally regulated derivatives. Joining the 36-state attorney general coalition earns 2 points; cease-and-desist earns 4; court action earns 8 (max 8).

  1. Connecticut Consumer Protection Orders Cease and Desist Conducting Unlicensed Online Gambling (CT.gov). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  2. Kalshi-vs-CT.pdf (predictionnews.com, 2025-12-04). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  3. Yost Co-leads Bipartisan Coalition Targeting Gambling Loophole - Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (ohioattorneygeneral.gov). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  4. 2025-6-17-NJ-Amicus.pdf (ohioattorneygeneral.gov, 2025-06-17). Accessed 2026-01-25.

Back to all states.