Online Poker in the United States — Dated Federal and State Research

Five questions behind a US online-poker claim

On a narrow screen, scroll this table sideways. With a keyboard, focus the table and use the arrow keys.

Federal law does not reduce to a player-safe exception

UIGEA: payment acceptance depends on underlying law

The 2024 US Code edition of UIGEA separates two questions. Section 5363 prohibits a person in the betting or wagering business from knowingly accepting specified payments connected to unlawful Internet gambling. Section 5362(10) defines that term by reference to applicable federal or state law where the wager is initiated, received or otherwise made. Section 5361(b) says the subchapter does not alter the underlying law governing gambling.

The conditional intrastate and intratribal exclusions are in §5362(10)(B) and (C); they are not a general exemption for online poker. The Regulation GG compliance guide separately describes payment-system controls. A processed transaction cannot establish that the underlying activity is lawful. Nor does §5363's business focus create individual immunity under other laws.

The Wire Act: identify the court and the statute

In New Hampshire Lottery Commission v. Rosen, 20 January 2021, the First Circuit held that the Wire Act applies only to interstate wire communications related to sporting events or contests. The opinion arose from a challenge to the Justice Department's broader 2018 interpretation. The court affirmed declaratory relief for the plaintiffs and vacated the separate Administrative Procedure Act relief as unnecessary.

That is a First Circuit holding. It should not be described as a Supreme Court ruling or a nationwide licence for interstate poker. State restrictions, other federal provisions and the facts of a particular service remain separate questions; this review does not survey every circuit's later cases.

Murphy: limits on directing state legislatures

The Supreme Court's 14 May 2018 Murphy v. NCAA decision invalidated PASPA's sports-gambling scheme under the anti-commandeering principle. The Court expressly recognized that Congress could regulate sports gambling directly. The decision did not authorize online poker or reduce all federal gambling law to an indirect payment rule. The former description of a universally “thin federal overlay” overstated the conclusion.

Selected state records: law, licence and launch

The following records cover different legal and operational stages. They are selected examples, not a complete state classification or a list of places where a particular reader may play. The old national count of seven “licensed states” is withdrawn: it conflated statutory categories, actual licences and service launches, and omitted relevant Maine and Rhode Island legislation.

On a narrow screen, scroll this table sideways. With a keyboard, focus the table and use the arrow keys.

Physical location is not the same as residence

MGCB's business FAQ, updated 12 May 2022, page 9, describes wagers by an authorized participant located in Michigan or, for the specified multijurisdictional products, an authorized US jurisdiction under a board agreement. It also separately addresses wagers conducted exclusively on Indian lands. This illustrates why a mailing address cannot substitute for the location of the activity. Age, exclusion status, identity and the product's authorization still require their own checks; the guide gives no methods for bypassing location controls.

A missing Internet-specific law is not permission

Washington RCW 9.46.240 makes the specified knowing transmission or receipt of gambling information, including via the Internet, a Class C felony. Subsection (2) contains exceptions for authorized activity, including specified sports wagering conducted under the required rules and compacts. Describing the provision without its exceptions is incomplete; those exceptions are not a general online-poker authorization.

Texas Penal Code §47.02 expressly covers playing and betting for value at card games. Its private-place defense has additional conditions, including no economic benefit beyond personal winnings and equal risks and chances except for skill or luck. A game called “private,” “social” or “skill-based” does not automatically satisfy them. These two examples explain why the previous “three prohibitive states; the rest grey” model was unreliable. Other states, territories and particular defenses are outside this selected survey.

MSIGA membership does not mean one nationwide pool

The Multi-State Internet Gaming Agreement provides a framework for participating jurisdictions to allow shared games. Pennsylvania's April 2025 announcement records it as the sixth member alongside Delaware, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey and West Virginia. MGCB's 1 April 2026 release again names those six. That dated membership evidence does not say all brands connect all six states.

On a narrow screen, scroll this table sideways. With a keyboard, focus the table and use the arrow keys.

A shared pool lets approved participants face players in the connected jurisdictions. It does not remove each jurisdiction's licensing or participant requirements. The cited approval does not establish that every account was migrated, that the event was the year's largest, or that a particular table or service is available now.

Tribal gaming requires the right game classification

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, §§2703 and 2710, does not place all poker in one compact category. Qualifying nonbanking card games can fall within Class II, subject to the statutory state-law conditions and tribal/NIGC requirements. Banking card games and electronic facsimiles are excluded from that category. Class III has a different authorization structure, including the applicable tribal-state compact requirements. A game's exact form and location matter; a physical card game is not interchangeable with its proposed online implementation.

Florida Statutes §285.710(13)(b)7 specifically addresses mobile sports betting and wagers by people physically in Florida, with a rule deeming that activity conducted at the tribal servers. It does not itself grant a general online-poker permission. Likewise, the existence of a tribal casino or a state-regulated cardroom cannot establish authorization for a remote poker service.

What the dated enforcement records establish

The US Attorney's 20 April 2011 domain-agreement announcement describes the 15 April indictment of eleven people, including company founders, and civil action involving poker companies and payment processors. It says the government had not restrained individual player accounts and describes arrangements intended to facilitate refunds. This documents the particular Black Friday proceedings; it does not establish a permanent rule about whom authorities can prosecute or guarantee recovery of funds.

MGCB's 30 May 2024 release records a cease-and-desist letter sent the previous day to Harp Media B.V., operator of Bovada. It is a Michigan agency action against named services, not proof of every state's enforcement policy or the final outcome of every related matter.

The NAAG August 2025 record concerns a coalition of 50 state and territory attorneys general urging federal action on illegal offshore gambling. “State and territory” is not the same as all fifty states. A request for enforcement is also not a conviction or a comprehensive account of the Justice Department's response.

This review did not conduct an exhaustive search of individual-player prosecutions. The former claims that no recreational player had been prosecuted across the United States or under Washington law are withdrawn. Selected operator cases cannot establish player immunity, rarity of prosecution or permission to use an unlicensed service.

Winnings, deductions and reporting in 2026

IRS Topic 419 explains that casual gamblers must report taxable winnings and keep records supporting winnings and losses. A form-reporting threshold is not a tax-free allowance. The amount withheld by a payer is also different from the final tax calculated on a return.

The wagering-loss deduction changed

Public Law 119-21, §70114, enacted 4 July 2025, amended Internal Revenue Code §165(d) for tax years beginning after 31 December 2025. The deduction is limited to the smaller of 90% of wagering losses or wagering gains; the provision also includes otherwise allowable deductions incurred in carrying on wagering transactions. IRS Publication 505 (2026) confirms the new Schedule A limit. The obligation comes from the enacted law, not a proposal to amend implementing regulations.

For illustration, $10,000 of wagering gains and $10,000 of eligible losses produces a $9,000 maximum under that limitation. This arithmetic is not a tax bill: whether and how a deduction is claimed, other income and deductions, and professional or nonresident status can change the return. It does show why breaking even in cash does not necessarily eliminate taxable income.

W-2G reporting is a different calculation

The January 2026 W-2G instructions state a $2,000 minimum reporting threshold for 2026 and direct readers to the rules for the particular game. The 2026 information-return guide's W-2G row corroborates that general amount, including poker tournaments, subject to the game-specific rules. The poker-tournament instructions use winnings reduced by the wager or buy-in for each tournament, without combining other tournaments' wins and losses. They separately address regular and backup withholding. The old blanket “$5,000+ poker reporting” statement is withdrawn.

Preserve tournament statements, buy-ins, winnings, loss records and any tax forms. Nonresident payments may use different forms and treaty rules; state taxation and professional-gambler treatment need separate review. This page does not provide a personal return calculation or certify any payment method.

Two documented results in American poker history

The WSOP's 12 December 2025 Mizrachi family retrospective distinguishes Michael Mizrachi's fifth-place finish in the 2010 Las Vegas Main Event from his first Main Event victory in 2025. Its 7 March 2026 Europe preview records the 2025 victory as his eighth bracelet. Reaching a second final table is not winning a second Main Event.

WSOP's 14 December 2023 Paradise report records Erik Seidel's tenth bracelet in Event #7 in the Bahamas. This is a result by an American player outside the United States, not a US venue or a September 2026 career-total claim.

These organizer records establish selected historical results. They do not rank current players, document a complete tournament circuit or establish present schedules, venue licences or online eligibility.

Research and support resources

When evaluating a claim, record the legal entity, game, jurisdiction, date and exact approval being cited. Keep operator statements separate from regulator decisions. For a personal legal or tax question, take those records to a qualified adviser in the relevant jurisdiction. A regulator complaint process is not a guarantee that funds can be recovered.

• How this research is reviewed and corrected
• Recognise impersonation and unverifiable claims
• Preserve evidence and report a problem
• Independent support and responsible-play resources

A publication date records when research was assembled; it does not guarantee that a law, regulator position, service or eligibility rule remains unchanged.

Sources, corrections and remaining limits

The linked source bodies were read for the bounded 28 September 2026 review. The House's current US Code pages did not load reliably, so the federal discussion uses the official 2024 US Code edition for UIGEA, original court opinions, the enacted tax law and 2026 IRS guidance. No complete current-law consolidation or fifty-state case search is claimed.

• UIGEA §§5361–5363 and Regulation GG guide: statutory scope and payment-system rules. First Circuit opinion, 2021, especially its conclusion and relief; Supreme Court opinion, 2018, including the express distinction between direct regulation and commandeering.
• The state table links the actual licence list, dated approvals and enactments. Maine's session laws, chapter 538, and Rhode Island's 2023 chapter 135 establish statutory text, not poker-product launches. Connecticut's dated FAQ is not a newly issued September 2026 certification.
• Washington §9.46.240, including subsection (2); Texas chapter 47; NIGC's IGRA text; Florida §285.710: selected restrictions, defenses and product distinctions, not every applicable provision.
• The enforcement section links the specific DOJ, MGCB and NAAG records. The tournament section uses dated WSOP reports. RSI announcements are company accounts of launches, identified as such and considered alongside the regulator's separate approval.
• Public Law 119-21 §70114, IRS Publication 505 (2026) and January 2026 W-2G instructions distinguish the enacted loss limit, return treatment and payer reporting. Older general tax summaries should not override the year-specific change.

Related country research

Each country has its own laws, source limits and research dates.

• Mexico research
• Brazil research
• Argentina research
• Chile research
• Colombia research
• Peru research
• Venezuela research
• All country guides