Online Gambling State Rankings

Hawaii HI

Score: 97 / 100

Restriction points: 95 Protection points: 2 Tax points: 0 Last verified: January 22, 2026

Report Card

Grade
A
A+=100+ · A=90–99 · B=80–89 · C=70–79 · D=50–69 · F=30–49 · F−=0–29
Total score
97/100
40 + 30 + 25 + 2 + 0 − 0
Why this score

Legal Status

Legal StatusNotes & sources
Online sports betting Not 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) Not legal
  1. Financial Services, Technology and Communications (ncsl.org). Accessed 2026-01-25.

History and Overview

Attempts to legalize sports betting

  • 2025-04-25: In April 2025, HB 1308 (sports betting) failed in conference when House and Senate versions could not be reconciled, ending the 2025 push.
  1. Hawaii lawmakers reject bill to legalize sports gambling > Hawaii Free Press (hawaiifreepress.com). Accessed 2026-01-25.

Score math

Raw formula
score = policyPoints + protectionsPoints + taxPoints − promotionPenalty
This state
(40 + 30 + 25) + 2 + 0 − 0 = 97

Safety Scoring

Scoring methodology and formula.

Online sports betting

Awarded
30 / 30
Legal Status
Not legal

Online sports betting apps are not 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
40 / 40
Legal Status
Not legal

iCasino apps are not legal.

  1. Financial Services, Technology and Communications (ncsl.org). Accessed 2026-01-25.

Neither online sports betting nor iCasino

Awarded
30 / 25
Legal Status
Not legal

No sports betting apps and no iCasino apps.

  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.
  3. Financial Services, Technology and Communications (ncsl.org). Accessed 2026-01-25.

State promotion / advertising of online gambling

Penalty
0 / 8

Not in place.

Tax Score

Awarded
0 / 4
Why
Not applicable (online sports betting not legal).

Tax rate (sports betting operators): Not applicable (online sports betting not legal).

  • This project focuses on tax structure only where online betting apps are legal.

Credit card funding ban

Awarded
0 / 5
Why
Not applicable (state has no online gambling apps).

Bans using credit cards to fund online betting.

Problem gambling hotline

Awarded
0 / 2
Why
Not applicable (state has no online gambling apps).

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

Funding for problem gambling messaging

Awarded
0 / 2
Why
Not applicable (state has no online gambling apps).

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

Non-integrated Self-exclusion list

Awarded
0 / 2
Why
Not applicable (state has no online gambling apps).

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.

Mandatory loss limits

Awarded
0 / 20
Why
Not applicable (state has no online gambling apps).

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 applicable (state has no online gambling apps).

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 applicable (state has no online gambling apps).

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 applicable (state has no online gambling apps).

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 applicable (state has no online gambling apps).

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 applicable (state has no online gambling apps).

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 applicable (state has no online gambling apps).

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

Higher minimum age (25+)

Awarded
0 / 5
Why
Not applicable (state has no online gambling apps).

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

Strong advertising protections

Awarded
0 / 5
Why
Not applicable (state has no online gambling apps).

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 applicable (state has no online gambling apps).

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 applicable (state has no online gambling apps).

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
2 / 8
Why
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. Yost Co-leads Bipartisan Coalition Targeting Gambling Loophole - Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (ohioattorneygeneral.gov). Accessed 2026-01-25.
  2. 2025-6-17-NJ-Amicus.pdf (ohioattorneygeneral.gov, 2025-06-17). Accessed 2026-01-25.

Back to all states.