Ontario proved that a regulated market for multiple online casino and sports betting operators could be established within Canada’s provincial gambling framework.
Alberta will now test whether the model can extend beyond the country’s largest market, as provincial governments weigh channelisation, public revenue, advertising pressure and the future of lottery monopoly control.
Canada’s regulated online gambling market is no longer a one-province exception.
Ontario stood alone for more than four years as Canada’s only regulated market open to multiple online casino and sports betting operators. On July 13th, Alberta followed, becoming the second province to adopt the model. The other eight retain monopoly or authorised partnership structures. Legal online gambling was already available through government-owned provincial platforms. Federal reforms permitting single-event sports betting allowed those operators to broaden their sportsbook products without opening the market to competition. Ontario instead admitted additional operators while retaining provincial control.
Companies register with the Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO), the regulator, and enter operating agreements with iGaming Ontario, which manages the competitive market. Operators receive 80% of gaming revenue under those agreements, while iGaming Ontario retains 20%. This 20% share is often described as Ontario’s iGaming tax rate. Formally, it is a contractual revenue share rather than a tax, with regulatory fees and ordinary business taxes applying separately.
The Ontario Lottery & Gaming Corporation continues to operate OLG.ca and PROLINE+ outside iGaming Ontario’s market reporting. Ontario therefore owns an online gambling business while regulating and receiving revenue from competing operators.
Alberta follows Ontario
Alberta has adopted a similar structure. Alberta Gaming, Liquor & Cannabis (AGLC) regulates operators and suppliers, while the Alberta iGaming Corporation manages the commercial agreements. PlayAlberta remains active but no longer holds exclusive access to the province’s regulated online market.
Alberta allocates 3% of GGR to First Nations and social responsibility funding before dividing the balance 80% to operators and 20% to government. Regulatory fees and ordinary business taxes apply separately.
Neither province has privatised online gambling in the conventional sense. Government retains control over market entry, commercial agreements and regulatory standards, while operators provide the brands, technology, casino content, sportsbook products, payment systems and customer-facing services.
Balancing control with competition
Ontario has weakened the argument that provincial control requires operator exclusivity. The province has retained regulatory and financial control while allowing multiple brands to compete for customers. For the remaining provinces, the choice is between retaining monopoly control and regulating a larger share of the market.
A monopoly preserves direct government control and the full operating return from the provincial platform, but only on the activity it captures. Its value therefore depends on whether this return compensates for the revenue and regulatory reach surrendered to sites operating outside the system.
For years, Canadian players have used online casino and sportsbook sites that operate outside their province’s regulated market. Wagering through those sites generates no provincial share of gaming revenue and falls outside local rules on player protection, advertising, reporting and enforcement.
Ontario has shown that established operators, broader product choice and private investment can shift customers into the regulated market. It has also shown how quickly advertising visibility and customer-acquisition pressure can prompt tighter regulation.
Alberta gives the remaining provinces a second market to assess. No third province has yet committed to following.
British Columbia and Manitoba use PlayNow. Quebec operates through Loto-Québec. Saskatchewan has a separate arrangement involving the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority, while the four Atlantic provinces are served by Atlantic Lottery. These systems continue to deliver public revenue and political control. They also face competition from operators outside their regulated markets, from which provincial governments receive no share of gaming revenue.
Ontario has made monopoly control harder to defend on channelisation grounds. Alberta will determine whether this argument survives in a smaller market.
Ontario at Five: Scale meets scrutiny
Ontario entered its fifth year of regulated competition with a market more than twice the financial size recorded during its first full reporting period. Annual wagers reached C$82.7bn (US$58.9bn) in 2024/25, while gaming revenue rose to C$2.9bn (US$2.1bn). Fifty operators were active at the end of the period, with more than 2.6m active player accounts recorded during the year.
Active accounts are not individual customers. Players may hold accounts with several operators, so the figure measures active account relationships rather than unique participants.
Ontario’s growth has been driven primarily by online casino.
Online casino generated C$69.7bn (US$49.6bn), or 84% of total wagers, and C$2.19bn (US$1.56bn) in gaming revenue during 2024/25. Sports betting, including esports, player props and in-play markets, generated C$11.4bn (US$8.1bn) in wagers and C$654m (US$466m) in gaming revenue.
Ontario had 83 active regulated gaming websites at the end of 2024/25. Each carried an annual regulatory fee of C$100,000 (US$71,000), before customer acquisition, technology, content, payments, compliance and staffing costs were considered.
Established operators can spread technology, compliance and marketing costs across multiple businesses and jurisdictions. Smaller brands require a distinct product, audience or distribution advantage to compete against companies with deeper balance sheets and stronger recognition.
Operator numbers have stabilised after the initial rush to enter. Ontario is moving from expansion towards a more selective phase shaped by retention, efficiency and consolidation. Regulated-site usage reached 91.1% among surveyed online gamblers in 2026, compared with 83.7% in the previous study commissioned by the AGCO and iGaming Ontario.
The figure should not be treated as a precise measure of channelisation. Respondents may use both regulated and unregulated sites, while the research records usage rather than the proportion of spending captured by each part of the market. It nevertheless suggests that regulated operators have become the principal destination for most respondents. Product depth, established brands and legal market access have shifted behaviour more effectively than enforcement alone was likely to achieve.
This success came with a political cost. The speed and visibility of customer acquisition, particularly around sports broadcasting, made advertising one of the market’s defining public issues.
Ontario has since tightened its standards. Public promotion of bonuses, credits and other inducements remains prohibited outside operator websites or direct communication with consenting customers. Restrictions introduced in 2024 also limited the use of active and retired athletes and curtailed advertising featuring celebrities, influencers and other figures likely to appeal to minors.
BetGuard, introduced in May 2026, allows customers to exclude themselves from all regulated operator sites through a single process rather than contacting each brand separately.
Ontario has therefore retained regulated competition while reducing the freedom with which operators can acquire customers and strengthening protections across the market. Restrictions must be applied without making the regulated product materially less attractive than alternatives outside the provincial framework.
Ontario is becoming a market in which scale alone is no longer enough. Sustainable growth will depend on retention, product quality, operational efficiency and customer acquisition within tighter advertising rules. For other provinces, Ontario has shown that regulated competition can improve channelisation, but also that commercial visibility can move faster than political tolerance. Its next phase will test whether scale can produce sustainable returns without weakening channelisation or provoking further intervention.
Alberta: Reclaiming the market
Alberta opened its regulated market with demand and established player habits already in place. The government estimated that operators outside the provincial framework accounted for about 70% of online gambling activity before the market opened on July 13th. Alberta was therefore not creating demand but attempting to bring an established market within provincial regulation and revenue collection.
Registered casino and sportsbook operators can now compete with PlayAlberta. Their immediate opportunity is to move existing customers into Alberta’s regulated market rather than generate higher spending among those already gambling online. This difference will shape how Alberta’s new market is judged. Revenue produced through channelisation strengthens the case for the model; growth driven principally by increased gambling expenditure would be harder for government to defend.
Alberta has about one-third of Ontario’s population and is likely to support fewer operators. The scale of existing activity outside provincial regulation could nevertheless support attractive returns for operators able to win and retain enough customers. Established operators enter with recognised brands, mature platforms and technology already deployed across multiple jurisdictions. Smaller operators face many of the same registration, content, payment, compliance and acquisition costs without comparable scale or customer recognition.
PlayAlberta retains an existing customer base, provincial recognition and an established operating record. Competing operators bring wider product ranges, international brands and greater marketing capability. The province will continue to receive the operating return from PlayAlberta while also receiving its agreed share of gaming revenue from competing operators in Alberta’s regulated online market.
AGLC oversees a market that includes a government-owned operator, while the Alberta iGaming Corporation manages agreements with competing brands. Equal treatment on standards, reporting, promotion and market access will be important to operator confidence.
Alberta has also incorporated protections that Ontario introduced only after opening. Centralised self-exclusion applies across the regulated market, while registration requirements extend to suppliers, games, platforms, payments and information-security systems. Their effectiveness will depend on channelisation. Player protection measures have limited reach when customers continue to gamble on sites outside provincial oversight.
Advertising is likely to provide the earliest political test. Operators need sufficient freedom to establish their brands and move customers into the regulated market, but an immediate saturation of sportsbook and casino promotion would weaken Alberta’s claim to have learned from Ontario.
Early registration and gaming revenue figures may reflect launch spending rather than the market’s underlying strength. Player migration, operator retention and PlayAlberta’s performance after losing exclusivity will become more revealing once acquisition budgets subside.
Alberta’s success will depend less on headline growth than on whether it redirects existing activity into the regulated system without recreating Ontario’s advertising pressures or encouraging expansion that becomes politically difficult to defend.
Where Canada goes next
Alberta has ended Ontario’s isolation without triggering a wider Canadian move towards regulated competition. The remaining provinces continue to rely on structures that preserve control over product, marketing, player data and public revenue. Ontario and Alberta must therefore demonstrate not only that competition can increase channelisation, but that it produces a better financial and regulatory outcome than provincial exclusivity.
British Columbia continues to position PlayNow as its only authorised online gambling platform. Its 2026/27 business plan acknowledges that national advertising by Ontario-regulated brands can direct British Columbians towards affiliated sites operating outside local oversight, but the current response is to strengthen PlayNow rather than admit competing operators.
Quebec faces the same policy question on a larger scale. Loto-Québec remains the province’s sole authorised online casino and sportsbook operator within a business that generated more than C$3bn (US$2.1bn) in consolidated revenue during 2025/26 and net income exceeding C$1.5bn (US$1.1bn).
These returns strengthen the case for retaining Loto-Québec’s exclusive position. Quebec would need to conclude that broader regulation could capture enough additional activity to compensate for sharing the market with other operators and accepting greater advertising and compliance demands. No competitive opening has been announced.
Manitoba also retains PlayNow as its authorised online platform. Saskatchewan uses the same technology through an arrangement operated by the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority, giving First Nations a direct role in regulated online gambling without opening the province to multiple operators. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador remain within the Atlantic Lottery structure. Its shared online casino and sportsbook operation provides regional scale and infrastructure that individual provinces would find difficult to replicate or dismantle independently.
Opening is most persuasive where a provincial platform captures only a limited share of existing demand. Competition can broaden product choice and bring more customers under local regulation, but governments must weigh that against dependable lottery income, increased advertising and a heavier regulatory burden.
Ontario can support a large number of operators because of its scale. Alberta will show whether regulated competition remains commercially attractive in a considerably smaller province. Smaller markets may attract fewer operators or require lower entry and operating costs.
British Columbia and Quebec offer the largest remaining opportunities, but neither appears close to abandoning exclusivity. Saskatchewan has adopted a partnership structure, while Manitoba and Atlantic Canada remain anchored to government-controlled models.
A third opening would begin to establish a Canadian direction. Until then, Ontario and Alberta remain individual provincial choices rather than evidence of a national transition.
Land-based Canada: Assets under pressure
Canada’s expanding regulated online gambling market sits beside a land-based casino industry organised through provincial contracts, government corporations and operating partnerships rather than a single national model.
Great Canadian Entertainment and Gateway Casinos & Entertainment control much of the commercial estate. Gateway operates 31 properties across British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta, with more than 14,000 slot machines and about 380 gaming tables. Great Canadian’s portfolio spans casinos, racetracks, hotels, entertainment venues and restaurants, including 12 properties in Ontario.
Continued investment suggests that online growth has not weakened the case for well-positioned physical venues. Gateway completed the expansion and relaunch of Cascades Casino London in June, while Great Canadian and Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation have agreed to relocate Casino Nova Scotia’s Halifax operation to a purpose-built property at Dartmouth Crossing. The strongest properties are broadening their hospitality and entertainment offer. Hotels, restaurants, theatres, conference space and live events extend visits, diversify revenue and provide experiences that online casino cannot reproduce.
This does not remove the pressure from online competition. Online operators offer continuous access, greater convenience and much larger games portfolios. Ageing or narrowly focused casinos will find it increasingly difficult to compete if gaming remains the principal reason to visit.
Regulated online gambling also gives established casino operators a route into a market that might otherwise erode their customer base. Land-based groups bring recognised brands, long-standing customer relationships, loyalty databases and detailed knowledge of their regional markets. These assets do not guarantee online success, but they can reduce customer-acquisition costs and provide the foundations for a business spanning land-based and online gambling.
Caesars already operates across both channels through Caesars Windsor and its regulated online casino and sportsbook brands in Ontario. Alberta’s market also includes operators connected to Pure Casinos and River Cree Resort and Casino. Their participation demonstrates the commercial potential of combining land-based assets with regulated online casino and sportsbook operations.
Loyalty, rewards, customer data and property benefits can connect the two channels, with online gambling maintaining customer engagement between visits and physical casinos providing dining, entertainment and social experiences unavailable to digital-only brands.
The opportunity is not equally available across the sector. Great Canadian and Gateway retain substantial customer bases and recognised properties, but neither has established a comparable regulated online presence in Ontario. As Ontario and Alberta develop, access to both channels may become a more important competitive distinction than the size of the land-based estate alone.
Petroglyph Development Group, owned by Snuneymuxw First Nation, completed acquisitions that made it Canada’s largest indigenous-owned gaming operator by revenue. Its portfolio includes Great Canadian Casino Vancouver, Casino Nanaimo, Elements Casino Victoria and Chances Maple Ridge. It later joined Musqueam Capital Corporation in acquiring River Rock Casino Resort. Further transactions involving Semiahmoo First Nation and Tsleil-Waututh Nation indicate a broader transfer of established casino assets into Indigenous ownership.
Saskatchewan provides a longer-established model through the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority. SIGA operates casinos and the province’s PlayNow platform, with income distributed through First Nations and provincial sharing arrangements. First Nations participation therefore extends beyond hosting agreements and revenue sharing into direct ownership, operation and control of major gaming assets. This brings greater influence over investment, employment and long-term commercial returns.
Canada’s land-based sector is not being displaced by online gambling, but the competitive gap is widening. Well-invested properties with strong brands, diversified facilities and access to both channels are better placed to retain customers. Operators dependent on ageing venues or land-based gambling alone face a more difficult position.
GGN Comment
Canada is unlikely to produce a single national online gambling model. Ontario and Alberta instead point towards a provincial patchwork in which markets open at different speeds and on different terms.
Ontario has shown that provincial control does not require operator exclusivity. Alberta will test whether the same principle works in a smaller market where much of the activity was already taking place outside local regulation.
The case for opening rests on channelisation, not growth alone. Provincial governments must bring existing demand into regulated systems without weakening the legal offer or allowing advertising to overwhelm the political argument.
There is a limited parallel with Argentina, where regional markets have developed under different rules and commercial structures. Canada’s institutions are more closely aligned, but future provinces may still adapt the model around their own lottery revenues, political priorities and First Nations partnerships.
A third opening would begin to turn two provincial exceptions into a broader Canadian direction, although not necessarily a uniform one.
