Is offering online sports betting, fantasy sports, e-sports betting, or online poker / blackjack / slots to Oregon residents illegal gambling under Oregon law?
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 say these activities are necessarily unlawful gambling. ORS 167.117(24) carves out gambling that is "specifically authorized by law", for example, pari-mutuel betting overseen by the Oregon Racing Commission (ORS chapter 462), DOJ-regulated bingo and raffles (ORS chapter 464), or gaming run by a Tribe under a State-Tribal Gaming Compact. The Oregon State Lottery itself is statutorily exempt from the gambling laws (ORS 461.040). Anything that is gambling but does not fit one of those carve-outs is "unlawful gambling," and a private operator running it in Oregon faces Class C felony exposure under ORS 167.127.
The AG walked through the statutory definition piece by piece, applying the PGE v. BOLI / State v. Gaines method of statutory interpretation:
- "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.
- "Contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the control or influence of the person", sports outcomes, fantasy roster point totals, e-sports match outcomes, and shuffled-card / random-spin online games all fit. A bettor cannot control the players' performance or the random number generator.
- "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.
For each of the four products the Lottery asked about, the AG found all three elements satisfied. The opinion is significant because it definitively closes any argument that fantasy sports, e-sports, or online versions of casino games occupy some kind of legal gray area in Oregon.
What this means for you
If you're a sports betting operator considering Oregon
Do not offer your product to Oregonians without specific authorization. The Oregon State Lottery operates a sports betting product (Scoreboard, available in Oregon since 2019) under its statutory exemption. A private company offering sports betting in Oregon is offering "gambling" under ORS 167.117(7), and once the other elements are met (interstate wires, financial transactions in Oregon, etc.), you are at risk of charges under ORS 167.127 (promoting unlawful gambling, Class C felony) and the related offenses in ORS 167.108 through 167.167.
Geofencing Oregon out of your platform is a common compliance step. If you take a wager from someone in Oregon, including someone who used a VPN or claimed a non-Oregon residence, your operations team has work to do.
If you operate a fantasy sports platform
Same answer. The opinion says specifically that fantasy sports, where customers select a roster of real players and the players' real-world performance determines the payout: is "gambling" under ORS 167.117(7). The fact that fantasy sports involves some skill in roster construction does not eliminate the chance element. Oregon does not currently have the kind of "skill-game" or "fantasy contest" carve-out that some other states have enacted.
If you want to enter Oregon, the realistic options are: (1) work with the Oregon State Lottery, which has the only statewide gambling-law exemption; (2) work with a Tribe under a State-Tribal Gaming Compact; (3) lobby for a legislative carve-out. Continuing to operate without one of those is felony-level risk.
If you operate an e-sports betting product
Same legal analysis. The opinion specifically addresses e-sports (betting on the outcome of competitive video game matches) as "gambling." The fact that the underlying contest is a video game does not change the analysis. The bettor stakes money, the outcome is contingent on something they cannot control, and they receive money if the outcome goes their way.
If you operate an online casino (poker, blackjack, slots)
The AG closes any argument that a casino game becomes legal when it moves online. The mode of delivery (in-person versus website) is irrelevant under ORS 167.117(7). Slots are a "contest of chance" by definition. Online poker and blackjack involve sufficient chance to qualify under the Oregon "predominant factor" interpretation. All three are gambling, none are exempt for private operators in Oregon.
If you're a startup considering "skill game" or "social casino" branding
The AG opinion implicitly closes some of the workarounds that have been used in other states. Calling your product a "skill game" does not exempt it if the outcome turns substantially on chance. A "social casino" that lets users buy chips and win back redeemable value is the same thing as a casino. The branding does not change the ORS 167.117(7) analysis.
If you're an Oregonian who plays at one of these sites
This opinion focuses on the operator's exposure, not the player's. ORS 167.122 through ORS 167.124 do create offenses for participating in unlawful gambling, but enforcement against individual players is rare in Oregon. The bigger practical risk for a player is that an unauthorized operator can fail, freeze accounts, or be shut down with deposits unrecoverable. Sticking to the Oregon State Lottery, tribal casinos, or charitable bingo / raffles regulated by the Oregon DOJ keeps you in clearly authorized channels.
If you're an Oregon district attorney
The opinion gives you AG-blessed analysis for prosecutions under ORS 167.127. You can rely on the AG's interpretation of ORS 167.117(7) as a definitive statement that online sports betting, fantasy sports, e-sports betting, and online casino games are all "gambling" within the meaning of the statute. The opinion expressly does not address whether other offense elements are met (such as the "promotes" element of ORS 167.122) or whether a particular activity is exempt under ORS 167.117(24).
Common questions
Q: Is the Oregon State Lottery's "Scoreboard" product affected by this opinion?
A: No. The Oregon State Lottery operates under ORS 461 and is expressly exempt from the gambling laws (ORS 461.040). The opinion is about private operators offering similar products without authorization.
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: What about pari-mutuel horse racing?
A: Pari-mutuel betting on horse races at Oregon racetracks is "gambling" but is authorized under ORS chapter 462. The AG's opinion does not disturb that authorization. (See also OP-2022-1, the Oregon Racing Commission opinion, which addressed historical horse racing machines as a separate question.)
Q: Does federal law preempt Oregon's gambling law for sports betting?
A: The opinion does not address federal law. PASPA (the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act) was struck down in Murphy v. NCAA, 138 S. Ct. 1461 (2018), leaving sports betting to the states. Oregon's choice has been to channel sports betting through the State Lottery, not to authorize private operators.
Q: What about cryptocurrency-based betting platforms?
A: ORS 167.117(22) defines "something of value" broadly to include "any money or property, any token, object or article exchangeable for money or property, or any form of credit or promise directly or indirectly contemplating transfer of money or property or of any interest therein." Cryptocurrency clearly fits. A bet placed in BTC or ETH is a bet of "something of value" under the statute.
Q: Does this opinion reach prediction markets?
A: The opinion mentions the federal Commodity Exchange Act in a footnote (7 USC § 1 et seq.) but does not analyze whether a particular activity falls within the CFTC's jurisdiction over event contracts. Prediction markets are a separate federal-preemption question that is in active litigation as of 2025-2026.
Q: What if I run a free-to-play sweepstakes promotion (no purchase necessary)?
A: The "stakes or risks something of value" element is the key. If users genuinely have no obligation to pay anything to participate, and a "no purchase necessary" path exists with the same chance to win as the paid path, courts have generally found that no "stake" is being made. The opinion does not specifically address sweepstakes promotion structures, but the broader Oregon law on sweepstakes (and FTC guidance on AMOE, alternative method of entry) is the relevant framework.
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.
These exclusions matter. An activity can be "gambling" under ORS 167.117(7) but not "unlawful gambling" if it falls within an authorization (Lottery, Racing Commission, DOJ-regulated charitable, tribal compact). Operators looking for a path into Oregon need to start with whether one of those authorizations is available.
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)
Related Oregon AG opinions:
- OP-2022-1 (Oregon Racing Commission / historical horse racing machines)
- 48 Op Atty Gen 15 (1995) (75 video lottery terminals as a prohibited casino)
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
ATTORNEY GENERAL
BENJAMIN GUTMAN
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. The Oregon State Lottery asked whether several activities being conducted by private entities, through websites or online software, constitute "gambling" under Oregon law. 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.
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.
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. The first step is to examine the statute's text and context. In doing so, we apply statutory and judicial rules for reading the text and context, including giving terms of common usage their plain meanings. The second step is to consider legislative history where it appears useful to the analysis of the statute. 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."
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.
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. 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 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." To "risk" is "to expose to hazard or danger." "Hazard" refers to "an adverse chance (as of being lost, injured, or defeated): DANGER, PERIL." 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." 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.
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. 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. In State v. Coats, the Supreme Court observed that "all forms of gambling," not just lotteries, "involve prize, chance, and consideration," 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." Again, this confirms that the legislature would have understood that paying for a chance to win counts as "staking" or "risking" something of value.
II. "Contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the control or influence of the person"
Sports betting and the related products in this opinion all involve a future contingent event — the outcome of the sporting contest, the fantasy roster's performance, the e-sports match, or the result of the random draw or spin in an online casino game — that is not under the control or influence of the person placing the wager.
III. "Upon an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome"
Each of these products pays out winnings in money or its equivalent if the bettor's selected outcome occurs. The third element is satisfied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, all four products described in the questions — traditional sports betting, fantasy sports, e-sports betting, and online versions of poker, blackjack, and slot machines — constitute "gambling" as defined in ORS 167.117(7). A private business offering any of them to Oregonians is at risk of committing the gambling offenses articulated in ORS 167.108 through ORS 167.167, subject to whether the other elements of those offenses are met. The Oregon State Lottery is the only entity exempt from Oregon's gambling laws under ORS 461.040.
Sincerely,
DAN RAYFIELD
ATTORNEY GENERAL