Online Gambling Regulation in the United States and Beyond: Lessons from Argentina

Online gambling has moved from legal uncertainty to increasingly mature, regulated markets around the world. The United States is a striking example of this evolution: in just over a decade, it has gone from a largely prohibited environment to a patchwork of state-level systems with sophisticated consumer protections and compliance obligations.

At the same time, other countries have taken different regulatory paths. Some have opted for highly centralized national regulators, while others, such as Argentina, have developeddecentralized licensing systemswith strong technical controls as a way to align local autonomy with national standards.

This analysis reviews the evolution of online gambling regulation in the United States, compares it with selected international models, and uses Argentina as a case study for decentralized licensing combined with rigorous technical oversight.

1. The Evolution of Online Gambling Regulation in the United States

The US story is one of gradual liberalization within a federal structure. Instead of a single national framework, the country has developed a state-by-state approach that balances local policy preferences with common compliance principles.

1.1 Early phase: prohibition and legal uncertainty

For many years, online gambling in the United States operated in a legal gray zone. Several federal laws shaped this period:

• Federal Wire Act (1961)– Originally targeted at organized crime, it prohibited certain interstate betting activities transmitted by wire communications. For decades, its interpretation created uncertainty around online betting and gaming.
• Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA, 2006)– Focused primarily on financial transactions, UIGEA restricted payment processing for unlawful internet gambling, pushing many operators to locate offshore or withdraw from the US market.

During this phase, most online gambling offerings accessible from the US were hosted outside the country, with limited direct oversight by US regulators. This created challenges for player protection, dispute resolution, and tax collection.

1.2 Turning point: intrastate legalization and the role of states

A key shift came when US authorities clarified that states could regulate certain types of online gambling within their borders. Several developments supported this change:

• Federal authorities signaled thatintrastateonline gambling, properly geofenced and licensed, could be permissible under certain conditions.
• States began to see regulated online gambling as a tool for modernizing lotteries and brick‑and‑mortar casinos, while generating tax revenue and improving consumer safeguards.

Leading states took early steps:

• Nevadafocused on online poker as an extension of its casino sector.
• New Jerseybuilt a comprehensive framework for online casino and poker, integrating Atlantic City casinos as license holders.
• Delawarelinked online gambling to its state lottery model, with a strong government-driven structure.

Each of these states developed licensing, technical and responsible gaming rules. While details differ, common pillars emerged: strong identity verification, geolocation controls, anti-money laundering procedures, and independent testing of games and platforms.

1.3 Post‑2018: sports betting boom and broader digital regulation

The repeal of federal restrictions on state‑regulated sports betting in 2018 accelerated digital gambling reform. Many states chose to legalize online sports betting, often as part of broader gaming policy updates. This produced a dynamic but fragmented landscape.

Today, US online gambling regulation is characterized by:

• State‑by‑state licensing– Each state decides whether to allow online sports betting, casino, poker, or other products, and under what conditions.
• Partnership models– Online operators frequently must partner with existing land‑based casinos, racetracks, or lotteries to access the market.
• Robust compliance requirements– Including know‑your‑customer (KYC) processes, age verification, geolocation, responsible gambling tools, and reporting obligations.
• Revenue and tax optimization– States calibrate tax rates and fee structures to balance public revenue, operator viability, and channelization away from unregulated offerings.

The result is a complex but increasingly mature ecosystem in which operators, suppliers, payment providers, and testing laboratories must adapt to a variety of state regulations while meeting consistently rising standards around player safety and technical integrity.

2. International Approaches: Centralized vs. Decentralized Models

Globally, regulators have converged on several common goals: protecting players, preventing crime, ensuring fair games, and collecting tax revenue. However, the institutional designs differ significantly. Comparing the US to other jurisdictions helps highlight the unique role of federalism and decentralization.

2.1 Centralized national regulators: a single framework

Several countries have opted for highly centralized gambling regulation, where a single national authority licenses and supervises the sector. While details vary, these systems often share characteristics such as:

• One primary regulatorresponsible for issuing licenses, enforcing rules, and monitoring compliance nationwide.
• Unified legislationdefining which products are allowed, how they can be advertised, and what responsible gambling measures are mandatory.
• Standardized technical requirementsfor RNG certification, platform security, reporting formats, and anti‑money laundering controls.

In practice, this means operators can typically access the entire national market through a single license, provided they comply with all national rules. This contrasts with the US need to adapt to multiple state frameworks.

2.2 Decentralized or multi‑jurisdictional systems

Other countries, especially large federal or quasi‑federal states, distribute authority among regions or provinces. In these models, regional governments may:

• Issue their own licenses.
• Set specific tax rates or fee structures.
• Define additional responsible gambling tools or local advertising restrictions.

However, to avoid fragmentation and technical incompatibility, these systems increasingly rely oncoordinated technical standards and shared oversight mechanisms—an area where Argentina offers a particularly instructive example.

3. Argentina as a Case Study: Decentralized Licensing with Strong Technical Control

Argentina provides a clear example of a decentralized framework in which provinces and the City of Buenos Aires retain significant autonomy over gambling, including online activities. At the same time, the country has moved toward coordination on key technical and integrity standards.

3.1 Provincial and city‑level licensing

In Argentina, provincial authorities and the City of Buenos Aires regulate games of chance within their territories. In practice, this means:

• Multiple licensing authorities– Each province and the City of Buenos Aires may authorize online gambling under its own rules and procedures.
• Tailored market design– Some jurisdictions emphasize partnerships with local land‑based operators, while others prioritize lottery‑linked models or open competitive tenders.
• Diverse product scopes– Certain jurisdictions approve a broad range of games (casino, sports betting, lotteries), while others limit online offerings.

This decentralized model allows each region to align regulation with its social, economic, and political preferences. At the same time, it creates the need for coordination to ensure that operators, suppliers, and players benefit from consistent technical and consumer protection standards.

3.2 National coordination and technical standards

To address these challenges, Argentina has developed mechanisms for aligning provincial approaches, particularly around technical requirements and control systems. Across jurisdictions, key trends include:

• Recognition of independent testing laboratories– Provinces and the City of Buenos Aires typically require certification of platforms and games by specialized laboratories that validate random number generators, payout configurations, and security protocols.
• Shared technical criteria– There is growing convergence around what data must be recorded, how transactions should be logged, and which security measures (encryption, access controls, monitoring tools) are required.
• Centralized reporting and monitoring tools– Many jurisdictions use or are aligning with centralized or standardized reporting formats to monitor real‑time operations, verify tax bases, and oversee responsible gambling tools.

This combination of local autonomy and shared technical controls enables Argentina to maintain policy flexibility while promoting credible, auditable operations nationwide.

3.3 Benefits of the Argentine model

Argentina’s approach showcases several advantages of decentralization supported by strong technical oversight:

• Policy flexibility – Provinces and the City of Buenos Aires can move at different speeds, pilot new models, and adapt quickly to local conditions.

• Encouragement of innovation – Operators can tailor products and partnerships to specific jurisdictions, while still working within harmonized technical parameters.

• Improved integrity and transparency – Mandatory technical certification and standardized reporting strengthen confidence for regulators, operators, and players.

• Enhanced channelization – As licensed environments become more robust and credible, players have more reasons to choose regulated platforms over unlicensed alternatives, a trend reflected in 2025 rankings of top licensed operators.

4. Comparing the United States and Argentina

Both the United States and Argentina exhibit multi‑jurisdictional regulatory structures, but they implement them in distinct ways. The comparison highlights design choices that influence market development, innovation, and compliance strategies.

4.1 Similarities that support a strong regulated market

Despite institutional differences, the US and Argentine systems share several fundamental principles that support sustainable growth of regulated online gambling:

• Local decision‑making– Regions or states decide which products to allow, how many licenses to issue, and what tax model to apply.
• Emphasis on technical integrity– Both systems rely on independent testing, secure platforms, and traceable transactions.
• Focus on channelization– Legal frameworks seek to steer players to licensed sites through credibility, consumer protections, and competitive offerings.
• Economic development– Licensing generates employment, technology investment, and fiscal revenue at the regional level.

4.2 Differences that shape operator strategy

For operators, suppliers, and investors, the distinctions between US and Argentine models translate into different strategic considerations:

• Regulatory complexity– The US requires navigation of numerous state frameworks, each with distinct rules on branding, partnerships, and marketing. Argentina also presents multiple jurisdictions, but technical convergence can simplify some aspects of platform certification and monitoring.
• Speed of reform– In both countries, some regions move faster than others. However, the patterns of political negotiation, public debate, and industry consultation differ, influencing how quickly new opportunities open.
• Localization– Cultural and economic differences across US states and Argentine provinces encourage finely tuned local strategies, from product mix to responsible gambling messaging.

5. Lessons from Other National Models

In addition to comparing the United States and Argentina, it is useful to look at how other regulated markets have addressed common challenges in online gambling. While approaches differ, several lessons stand out:

• Clear, modern legislation– Countries that regularly update their gambling laws to reflect digital realities tend to offer more legal certainty and better long‑term conditions for investment.
• Balanced tax and fee structures– Sustainable tax levels encourage channelization to regulated operators, maintaining competitiveness while delivering stable public revenues.
• Proactive responsible gambling policies– Mandatory self‑exclusion tools, deposit limits, and intervention protocols help protect vulnerable players and enhance the sector’s public image.
• Transparent technical rules– Detailed but practical technical requirements build trust, streamline certification, and reduce disputes.

Both the US and Argentina can draw on these experiences when refining their frameworks, especially in areas such as cross‑border cooperation, data protection, and standardized reporting.

6. Strategic Opportunities in Evolving Regulatory Landscapes

For stakeholders across the value chain—operators, suppliers, investors, regulators, and technology providers—the evolution of online gambling regulation presents significant opportunities. When rules are clear and enforceable, the benefits are substantial:

• Stronger player trust– Regulated environments with certified games, robust identity checks, and visible compliance measures encourage players to choose legal sites.
• Predictable investment climate– Transparent licensing and tax policies support long‑term planning, innovation, and product development.
• Data‑driven supervision– Real‑time or near real‑time reporting allows regulators to detect issues early, monitor market trends, and update rules based on evidence.
• Enhanced reputation– Jurisdictions that combine business‑friendly conditions with strong consumer protections can position themselves as regional or global reference markets.

In this context, the United States showcases the scalability of a high‑value, multi‑state market, while Argentina highlights how decentralized licensing can coexist with rigorous, coordinated technical control. Together, they illustrate that there is not a single “correct” model, but rather a set of principles that can be adapted to each country’s legal and political reality.

7. Looking Ahead: Convergence, Cooperation, and Continuous Improvement

Online gambling regulation is still evolving. Technologies such as mobile apps, live dealer streams, and increasingly sophisticated analytics continuously reshape how people play and how operators manage risk. In response, regulators are moving toward more data‑centric, collaborative approaches.

Key trends to watch include:

• Greater alignment of technical standardsacross jurisdictions, easing cross‑border operations while keeping strict controls.
• Expansion of responsible gambling toolsand early‑warning systems based on behavioral data, always balanced with privacy protections.
• More formal cooperation between regulatorsto share best practices, coordinate enforcement, and address unlicensed operators.
• Continuous modernization of legal frameworksso that rules keep pace with innovation and emerging business models.

Within this global evolution, the US and Argentina will likely continue to refine their hybrid, multi‑jurisdictional systems. Their experience shows that it is possible to combine local policy autonomy with strong, coherent technical and consumer protection standards—creating regulated markets that are safer, more competitive, and better aligned with long‑term industry sustainability.

For policymakers and industry leaders, the central message is clear: well‑designed regulation is not an obstacle to growth—it is a powerful enabler of innovation, trust, and long‑term value in the online gambling sector.