US state and product permission checks

Method and coverage

We started with this site’s territory facts, then reopened official regulator and legislative sources for product categories, complaint procedures and selected age or location rules on October 25, 2026. Each row links its evidence. Where an official page was not fully retrievable, we retained a narrow statement or marked the detail unestablished rather than inventing a complete rule. New Jersey’s relevant guidance was available through official-page search text after a direct fetch restriction.

The comparison intentionally separates authorization, account eligibility and dispute routing. A directory can identify an approved platform without answering a bonus question; a statute can set a minimum age without providing a current domain list. Operator wallet design, individual promotion eligibility and payment processing times are not derived from these state sources. Recheck the official page before acting because a review date does not freeze the record.

Compare the relevant conditions

Each row includes its evidence. On a small screen, scroll the table horizontally.

A four-part permission record

Write down the physical state, actual product, player-facing domain and relevant license holder or platform. These four fields prevent a national brand name from doing too much work. For an online slot promotion, a sportsbook entry is incomplete evidence even if the same business operates both services. An app-store listing and a copied regulator logo are also weaker than following the regulator’s own product link.

Pennsylvania’s official directory provides distinct routes for sports wagering, iGaming, online poker and fantasy contests. Connecticut’s page separately identifies casino and sports platforms and states different age thresholds for some other activities. Read those categories before interpreting a broad claim that a platform is legal. The practical conclusion should identify the product actually checked rather than declare the whole brand approved.

Evidence: PGCB: Official product directories · Connecticut DCP: Legal gaming by product

Location and wallets answer different questions

Delaware’s official internet-gaming information expressly requires in-state presence. Michigan section 11 includes location requirements and an authorized multijurisdictional poker exception. That exception should not be generalized into nationwide permission for online slots. A permanent address, a verified identity and a successful account login are not interchangeable with the device’s actual location when a wager is attempted.

Whether cash or restricted credit follows an account between state editions is a separate contractual and technical question. For example, a fictional $120 display could represent $100 cash and $20 restricted promotional credit. Even if $100 is accessible in another edition, the $20 award may have different terms. The state source does not establish either outcome. Ask for the state ledger and offer identifier; do not use another person’s account or location to continue play.

Evidence: Delaware Lottery: Internet gaming · Michigan Legislature: Lawful Internet Gaming Act, section 11

Route the complaint by transaction, not by logo

Keep the disputed state, product, amount, incident date and operator case number together. New Jersey’s internet guidance requires the initial casino complaint and response before its internet dispute form. Michigan similarly asks about the written operator complaint and the written response. These are reasons to preserve a formal record; they do not guarantee that the requested money will be awarded.

Pennsylvania distinguishes a claim for cash or merchandise from a nonmonetary complaint and publishes a 30-calendar-day incident window. Its forms distinguish iGaming casino, live dealer and online sportsbook matters. A support estimate does not establish that a filing deadline is paused. If a material date or the correct route is unclear, consult the regulator promptly and describe the uncertainty.

Evidence: New Jersey DGE: Authorized sites and internet disputes · MGCB: Written complaint and response requirements · PGCB: Complaint and dispute forms

Use an explicit unresolved result

A useful review can end with permission not established. If the available source describes a law but not a domain, record that gap. If the platform’s consumer name differs from the listed license holder, retain both and ask for the relationship. Do not turn an unknown complaint deadline into a statement that no complaint process exists.

For a fictional review, the final note might read: Pennsylvania casino category located; exact platform link matches; account eligibility and offer terms still unchecked. Another might read: West Virginia age restriction located; current domain authorization not established from the evidence collected. These notes are more usable than a single green check because they show precisely which question remains.

Preserve the source URL and review date with the note, but keep identity documents out of a shared research file. Licensing records cannot determine whether a promotion fits personal spending limits or make an uncertain balance into income. Use the related licensing, withdrawal and complaint guides for those distinct questions, and stop the review if the next step would require gambling merely to test an assumption.

Continue with the specific question

• US online casino status: all 50 states and DC
• Verifying a US online casino license
• Preparing a US casino bonus complaint
• Travel, state wallets, and unfinished promotions
• Withdrawal limits, bonus caps, and payment limits
• Sportsbook bonuses are not casino bonuses

Territory directory · Find independent support · Report a correction