Do online sports bets, fantasy sports, e-sports bets and online casino games count as gambling in Oregon?

Plain-English summary

The Oregon State Lottery asked the AG four questions about whether private companies offering various online wagering products to Oregonians are running "gambling" operations under Oregon law. The Attorney General's answer in November 2025 was: yes to all four. Online sports betting, fantasy sports drafting, e-sports betting, and online versions of traditional casino games (poker, blackjack, slots) all meet the statutory definition of "gambling" in ORS 167.117(7).

The opinion does not decide whether each activity is unlawful gambling. Footnote 2 expressly leaves open whether an activity is specifically authorized by law and points to pari-mutuel wagering under ORS chapter 462 and games regulated under ORS chapter 464. It places tribal compact gaming outside its scope. The Oregon State Lottery is exempt under ORS 461.040. Footnote 1 identifies promoting or profiting from unlawful gambling under ORS 167.127 as a Class C felony, but the opinion conditions offense risk on the other elements being met.

The AG walked through the statutory definition piece by piece, applying the PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries / State v. Gaines method of statutory interpretation:

1. "Stakes or risks something of value", paying or agreeing to pay money for a chance to win counts. The 1971 legislature's definition of "lottery" (ORS 167.117(12)) describes paying for a chance to win as "an unlawful gambling scheme," confirming that staking money for a chance counts.
2. "Contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the control or influence of the person", the opinion applies this element to sports outcomes, individual players' performance, video-game outcomes, and traditional casino games offered online.
3. "Upon an agreement that the person or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome", paying out winnings to bettors based on the result.

The AG concluded that each activity described in the four questions counts as gambling. Whether offering a particular product violates a gambling offense requires a separate analysis.

What this means for you

If you're a sports betting operator considering Oregon

The opinion concludes that the online sports betting described in its question is "gambling" under ORS 167.117(7). The Lottery is exempt under ORS 461.040. A private business offering the described betting is at risk of a gambling offense if its other elements are met; the opinion leaves authorization of a particular activity open.

If you operate a fantasy sports platform

The opinion concludes that the described fantasy sports betting is "gambling" under ORS 167.117(7): prizes depend on individual players' performance, a future contingent event outside the customer's control.

If you operate an e-sports betting product

The opinion concludes that betting on the outcome of competitive video-game matches is "gambling" under ORS 167.117(7), and that the underlying contest being a video game does not change the analysis.

If you operate an online casino (poker, blackjack, slots)

The opinion concludes that poker, blackjack and slots do not cease to be gambling when offered online. It explains that the statutory definition does not depend on the technology used and identifies poker as a game encompassed by "contest of chance."

If you're an Oregonian who plays at one of these sites

The opinion addresses whether the described activities are gambling and whether a business offering sports betting is at risk of an offense. It does not determine a player's criminal liability.

If you're an Oregon district attorney

The opinion interprets ORS 167.117(7) for the activities described. Before applying a gambling offense, the other elements and any specific legal authorization must be considered; the opinion does not resolve them for a particular activity.

Common questions

Q: Does the opinion apply the same gambling laws to the Oregon State Lottery? A: No. It states that the Lottery is exempt from Oregon's gambling laws under ORS 461.040.

Q: Are tribal casinos in Oregon affected?
A: No. The opinion explicitly notes that gaming activities conducted by a Tribe pursuant to a State-Tribal Gaming Compact authorized under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 USC §§ 2701-2721, are outside the scope of the analysis.

Q: Does the opinion decide whether pari-mutuel wagering is unlawful? A: No. Footnote 2 says the opinion does not determine whether particular gambling is specifically authorized by law and identifies ORS chapter 462's regulation of pari-mutuel wagering as an example.

Q: Does the opinion decide any federal-law question?
A: No. Footnote 2 expressly excludes federal-law issues, including whether a particular activity falls under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Q: Did the AG decide whether cryptocurrency bets meet the definition? A: No. The opinion quotes ORS 167.117(22)'s broad definition of "something of value" but does not apply it to cryptocurrency.

Q: Does the opinion decide whether prediction markets are gambling? A: No. It does not analyze a prediction-market product. Footnote 2 reserves questions about federal law, including the Commodity Exchange Act.

Q: Does the opinion decide whether a free sweepstakes is gambling? A: No. The opinion analyzes products in which customers wager money; it does not address a free sweepstakes promotion.

Background and statutory framework

The 1971 gambling code

Oregon's modern gambling law was enacted in 1971 (Or Laws 1971, ch 743). The definitions in ORS 167.117, gambling, contest of chance, something of value, lottery: have remained largely unchanged for more than 50 years. Because they predate the internet by decades, the application to online activities is a matter of statutory interpretation rather than tailored legislation.

The PGE / Gaines interpretation method

Oregon courts use a three-step method for statutory interpretation: (1) examine text and context, including dictionaries from around the time of enactment for undefined terms; (2) consider legislative history; (3) resort to general maxims of construction if uncertainty remains. The AG's opinion walks through each step for the disputed terms in ORS 167.117(7).

What's not covered

The opinion makes clear it does not address:

• Whether a particular activity is "specifically authorized by law" and therefore not "unlawful" under ORS 167.117(24).
• Federal-law issues, including whether activity falls within the Commodity Exchange Act.
• Tribal gaming under IGRA.
• Other elements of the gambling offenses beyond the "gambling" definition.

An activity's classification as "gambling" does not answer whether it is specifically authorized or whether all elements of an offense are met.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• ORS 167.117 (Oregon gambling definitions)
• ORS 167.127 (promoting unlawful gambling)
• ORS 461.040 (Oregon State Lottery gambling-law exemption)

Key cases:

• PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 (1993)
• State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (2009)
• State v. Coats, 158 Or 122 (1938)
• City of Portland v. Duntley, 185 Or 365 (1949)

Source

• Index page: https://www.doj.state.or.us/oregon-department-of-justice/office-of-the-attorney-general/attorney-general-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://www.doj.state.or.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/OP8297.pdf

Original opinion text

DAN RAYFIELD
BENJAMIN GUTMAN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
INTERIM DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Justice Building
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, Oregon 97301-4096
Telephone: (503) 378-6002

November 13, 2025

No. 8297

Gambling is unlawful in Oregon with limited exceptions. 1 The Oregon State Lottery asked whether several activities being conducted by private entities, through websites or online software, constitute “gambling” under Oregon law.2 We have set out those questions and our answers below, followed by a discussion.

BACKGROUND

As background for the following questions, assume that a business operates a website or application accessible to Oregonians that offers “sports betting.” Customers register for an online account by providing personal information and a payment source, such as a credit card.
The customer selects one or more sporting events and chooses an amount of money to wager on the outcome. The subject of the wager can vary from whether a particular team will win at all, or win by a certain number of points, to more complex wagers that depend on the outcome of several different events. The business determines the outcome of the events by consulting official sports statistics and pays prizes on that basis.

1
See ORS 167.127 (promoting or profiting from unlawful gambling is a Class C felony).
2
The Oregon State Lottery is not subject to Oregon’s gambling laws. ORS 461.030(2);
ORS 461.040.
This opinion does not address other elements of Oregon’s gambling offenses, such as whether a particular activity that constitutes gambling is specifically authorized by law and therefore does not constitute “unlawful” gambling. ORS 167.117(24); see, e.g., ORS ch 462 (authorizing the Oregon Racing Commission to license and regulate race meets where the pari-mutuel system is used, as well as off-track wagering and advance deposit wagering); ORS ch 464 (directing the Department of Justice to authorize and regulate the operation of bingo, lotto and raffle games and Monte Carlo events permitted under ORS 167.117); City of Portland v. Duntley, 185 Or 365, 391, 203 P2d 640 (1949) (holding that the Oregon State Racing Act authorized “pari mutuel betting at the race track or at race meets conducted under the supervision of the Oregon Racing Commission” and therefore exempted that sort of betting from the scope of Oregon’s nuisance statute, but did not exempt other forms of bookmaking or betting on animal races). This opinion also does not address issues of federal law, such as whether a particular activity falls within the scope of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 USC § 1 et seq. Furthermore, gaming activities conducted by a Tribe pursuant to a State-Tribal Gaming Compact authorized under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 USC §§ 2701-2721, are outside the scope of this opinion.
 QUESTIONS AND SHORT ANSWERS

QUESTION 1

Does the website or application offer “gambling” as defined in ORS 167.117(7)?

SHORT ANSWER 1

Yes. A business that offers sports betting to Oregonians through a website or application is offering “gambling” and is at risk of committing the offenses articulated in ORS 167.108 through ORS 167.167 if the other elements of those offenses are met. That prohibition would not apply to the Oregon State Lottery, which is exempt from Oregon’s gambling laws pursuant to ORS 461.040.

QUESTION 2

Does the answer to Question 1 change if instead of traditional sports betting, the website or application offers betting on “fantasy sports,” in which customers select or “draft” a roster of players from various real-life sports teams, and the performance of those players determines whether the customer wins and what the payout amount should be?

SHORT ANSWER 2

No.

QUESTION 3

Does the answer to Question 1 change if, instead of traditional sports betting, the website or application offers betting on “e-sports,” in which customers bet on the outcome of video games being played by professional, competitive video game players?

SHORT ANSWER 3

No.

QUESTION 4

Are traditional forms of gambling, such as poker, blackjack, and slot machines, exempt from the definition of “gambling” when they are offered through a website or application?

SHORT ANSWER 4

No.

2
 DISCUSSION

ORS 167.117(7) defines “gambling,” for the purpose of Oregon’s gambling laws, as follows:

“Gambling” means that a person stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the control or influence of the person, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.

In interpreting the definition of “gambling,” we follow the statutory interpretation method set out by the Oregon Supreme Court in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, and subsequently refined in State v. Gaines. 3 The first step is to examine the statute’s text and context. 4 In doing so, we apply statutory and judicial rules for reading the text and context, including giving terms of common usage their plain meanings. 5 The second step is to consider legislative history where it appears useful to the analysis of the statute.6 The third and final step is to resort to “general maxims of statutory construction to aid in resolving [any] uncertainty” as to the legislature’s intent that remains “after examining text, context, and legislative history.” 7

The first clause of the definition of gambling, prior to the stated exceptions, sets forth three elements for that definition. The first is that a person “stakes or risks something of value.” The second is that the “something of value” is staked or risked “upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the control or influence of the person.” The third is that the staking or risking occurs “upon an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.” That definition was enacted in 1971, and remains largely unchanged.8

I. “Stakes or risks something of value”

When interpreting a statute under the interpretational method described in PGE and Gaines, if a statutory term is not defined, we are directed to consult dictionaries in existence around the time of the enactment of the statute.9 Accordingly, if a word in the first clause of the definition of “gambling” is not defined elsewhere by statute, we consult the 1971 edition of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary to determine its plain meaning.

The first element of gambling requires a person to “stake” or “risk” something of value.
ORS 167.117(22) defines “something of value” as “any money or property, any token, object or article exchangeable for money or property, or any form of credit or promise directly or

3
PGE, 317 Or 606, 610, 859 P2d 1143 (1993); Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-172, 206 P3d 1042 (2009).
4
PGE, 317 Or at 610-11.
5
Id.
6
Gaines, 346 Or at 171-172.
7
Id. at 172.
8
Oregon Laws 1971, ch 743, § 263.
9
State v. Perry, 336 Or 49, 53, 77 P3d 313 (2003).

3 indirectly contemplating transfer of money or property or of any interest therein.” The statutes do not define “stake” or “risk,” so we consult a dictionary to determine their meaning. To “stake” is “to risk (as one's money or life) upon the issue of competition or upon a future contingency : WAGER, VENTURE, BET.”10 To “risk” is “to expose to hazard or danger.”11 “Hazard” refers to “an adverse chance (as of being lost, injured, or defeated) : DANGER, PERIL.”12 Accordingly, the first element of gambling is met when a person exposes something of value to a chance of being lost.

Taken out of context, the term “stake” or “risk” could be read to mean that, if a person pays something of value to win a prize and has no expectation of receiving that payment back, nothing has been “staked” or “risked” because there is a certainty, rather an adverse chance, that the something of value is lost. The statutory context of ORS 167.117, however, indicates that the legislature considered payment for a chance to win a prize to be a “stake” or “risk” of something of value. Statutory context includes other terms enacted at the same time as the definition of “gambling.” 13 At the time that the legislature defined “gambling,” it also defined a “lottery” as follows:

“Lottery” or “policy” means an unlawful gambling scheme in which: (a) The players pay or agree to pay something of value for chances, represented and differentiated by numbers or by combinations of numbers or by some other medium, one or more of which chances are to be designated the winning ones; (b) The winning chances are to be determined by a drawing or by some other method; and (c) The holders of the winning chances are to receive something of value.14

The legislature defined a lottery as an “unlawful gambling scheme” in which players “pay or agree to pay” something of value for chance, represented by numbers, to receive something of value. The legislature also provided that a person promotes gambling in the first degree if he receives, in connection with a lottery, “money or written records” or more than $500 in one day of money played.15 By characterizing a lottery in which players “pay or agree to pay” for a chance to win as an “unlawful gambling” scheme, the legislature indicated that a player satisfies the element of “gambling” that requires one to “stake or risk something of value” when the player pays or agrees to pay for a chance to win a prize of some kind.

Statutory context also includes court decisions that existed at the time that the statute was enacted. 16 In State v. Coats, the Supreme Court observed that “all forms of gambling,” not just

10
Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 2220 (unabridged ed 1971).
11
Id. at 1961.
12
Id. at 1041.
13
See Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. City of Gresham, 359 Or 309, 322, 374 P3d 829 (2016) (citing “statutes enacted simultaneously as well as prior versions of the same statute” as context for the interpretation of a statute imposing a privilege tax).
14
ORS 167.117(12).
Or Laws 1971, ch 743, § 265 (Reg Sess).
15

Oregon Occupational Safety & Heath Div. v. CBI Services, Inc., 356 Or 577, 593, 341 P3d 16

701 (2014).

4 lotteries, “involve prize, chance, and consideration,” 17 meaning that all forms of gambling have the elements of a scheme “whereby one, on paying money or other valuable thing to another, becomes entitled to receive from him such a return in value, or nothing, as some formula of chance may determine.” 18 Again, this confirms that the legislature would have understood that paying someone for a chance to win a prize is gambling, whether or not one expected to get the initial payment back.

The legislative history of the definition of “gambling” indicates that the phrase “stakes or risks something of value” should be read broadly. ORS 167.117 was adopted as part of the 1971 Criminal Code, and Oregon courts have held that the Commentary to the Oregon Criminal Law Revision Commission Proposed Oregon Criminal Code, Final Draft and Report, is part of the code’s legislative history.19 That commentary observes that the Commission defined the terms “contest of chance” and “gambling” using “broad, comprehensive terms that are intended to include any sort of activity that includes gain based on chance.” 20 The legislature adopted the phrase “stakes or risks something of value” in the definition of “gambling” without changes from the draft, suggesting that it shared this goal. If the legislature intended to define gambling broadly to include any sort of activity that includes gain based on chance, it follows that it would have understood paying for a chance to win a prize to fall within the term “stakes or risks something of value.”

II. “Contest of chance or future contingent event”

The second element of gambling requires a person to expose something of value to a chance of being lost “upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the control or influence of the person.”21 The disjunctive “or” can be inclusive or exclusive, 22 meaning that it can mean “a contest of chance or a future contingent event” or both, or “a contest of chance or a future contingent event” but not both. However, “or” is distinct from the conjunctive “and,” which would require the state to establish that something of value was risked on both a contest of chance and a future contingent event. “There is no justification for using ‘or’ as meaning ‘and’, unless the failure to do so would leave a statute meaningless or absurd.” 23 Accordingly, the second element of gambling can be satisfied by establishing that something of value was risked upon the outcome of either a contest of chance or a future contingent event. It also can be satisfied by proving both, but that is not required.

17
158 Or 122, 132, 74 P2d 1102 (1938).
18
Id. at 129.
19
State v. Chakerian, 325 Or 370, 379, 938 P2d 756 (1997) (acknowledging the commentary as part of the code’s legislative history under the PGE framework of statutory analysis, but declining to consider it based on a lack of ambiguity in the text).
20
Commentary to Criminal Law Revision Commission Proposed Oregon Criminal Code, Final Draft and Report §§ 264, 265 at 257 (July 1970).
21
ORS 167.117(7).
22
Burke v. State ex rel Dept of Land Conservation and Development, 352 Or 428, 437, 290 P3d 790 (2012) (analyzing the use of “or” in ORS 195.300’s definition of an “owner”).
23
McCabe v. State, 314 Or 605, 611, 841 P2d 635 (1992) (quoting Lommasson v. School Dist.
No. 1, 201 Or 71, 79 (1954)).

5
 A. “Contest of chance”

ORS 167.117(6) defines a “contest of chance” as follows:

“Contest of chance” means any contest, game, gaming scheme or gaming device in which the outcome depends in a material degree upon an element of chance, notwithstanding that skill of the contestants may also be a factor therein.

Before the adoption of the 1971 Criminal Code, Oregon criminal statutes prohibited playing “any game of faro, monte, roulette, rouge et noir, lansquenet, rondo, vingt-et-un or twenty -one, poker, draw poker, brag, bluff, thaw or any banking or any other game played with cards, dice or any other device * * *.”24 In its commentary to the definition of “contest of chance,” the Oregon Criminal Law Revision Commission stated that that term, like “gambling,” was “intended to include any sort of activity that brings in gain based on chance,” although “none of the specific games are listed by name.” 25 In other words, by replacing the specific games listed in the prior statute with the definition of “contest of chance,” the legislature did not intend to permit those games; instead, it intended to broaden the definition of gambling to include games other than those specifically named by statute.

B. “Future contingent event”

ORS chapter 167 does not define the term “future contingent event.” “Future,” when used as an adjective, ordinarily means “that is to be : still to come.” 26 When used with reference to an event, the term “contingent” can have several meanings, including “happening by chance : affected by unforeseen causes or conditions : not patently necessary : unpredictable in occurrence or outcome .”27 The statute refers to risking something of value upon the “outcome” of a future contingent event, indicating that the legislature did not use “contingent” in the sense of whether the event would occur, but what its outcome would be. This is consistent with the definition of “bookmaking” as “unlawfully accepting bets from members of the public, as a business * * * upon the outcomes of future contingent events.” 28 Thus, of the various possible meanings for “contingent” suggested by the dictionary, “unpredictable in outcome” is the most consistent with how the term is used in the statute.