Across both the United States and the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region, gambling policy is moving along a similar axis: national frameworks set the outer boundaries, while sub-national governments shape the practical, day-to-day rules. Since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal sports betting ban in 2018, American states have raced to legislate, regulate, and tax wagering, much like Australian states and territories, Indian states, Japanese prefectures and others in APAC do within their own national constraints.
The United States
The modern U.S. landscape stems from Murphy vs NCAA, the Supreme Court case that struck down PASPA’s federal prohibition on state-authorised sports betting. That ruling returned power to the states, igniting a wave of legislation and regulation.
A second federal pillar is the 1961 Wire Act. After a decade of uncertainty, a 2021 First Circuit decision reaffirmed that the Wire Act applies to sports betting only, clarity that has helped states and lotteries design compliant systems.
With federal roadblocks lowered, states have gone their own way. Sports betting is now legal in most states, and a smaller cohort has authorised iGaming, with many popular online casinos able to offer their services to locals. At present, seven states – New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, West Virginia, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island – permit online casino gaming in some form.
Two important patterns define the U.S. picture:
- Patchwork by design. Each state fine-tunes market structure, tax rates, advertising rules and responsible gaming tools. The American Gaming Association’s annual State of the States report underlines just how different those outcomes can be, even while total commercial-gaming tax revenues set new records.
- Digital growth with guardrails. States have layered in identity verification, geolocation, self-exclusion and payments rules. Because the Wire Act still governs interstate sports bets, operators and suppliers design systems to keep transactions interstate for sports, while iGaming products rely on state-licensed servers and controls.
APAC
Across the APAC region, gambling laws are set by national governments but often implemented, or tightened, by state, territory, or prefectural authorities. This creates a patchwork that resembles the United States’ state-by-state model, though the scope of legal products varies widely.
In Australia, federal law under the Interactive Gambling Act bans online casino games, while states license land-based casinos under their own rules. New Zealand allows only authorised domestic providers for remote gambling, though offshore sites remain accessible pending reforms to tighten oversight. Singapore has consolidated its laws under the Gambling Control Act 2022, with the Gambling Regulatory Authority supervising both land-based and online offerings.
Macau remains the world’s largest casino hub, operating under a concession system while prohibiting online gambling. Japan is advancing its integrated resorts projects under national approval, but with prefectural execution. The Philippines combines a state-run regulator with an open land-based market but has recently shut down offshore operators over crime concerns.
Other jurisdictions, such as Mainland China and South Korea, maintain strict prohibitions for locals. Overall, APAC mirrors the U.S. in devolving certain powers locally, while national frameworks still define market limits, compliance rules, and enforcement priorities.
Where the U.S. and APAC Rhyme
Devolution With Oversight
In both systems, the central government sets the perimeter, with subnational entities doing the heavy lifting. In the U.S., that’s statehouses, lotteries/gaming boards. In APAC, states, territories, prefectures, or empowered regulators tailor licensing, compliance, and harm-minimisation rules. The result is patchwork by choice.
Digital First, But Not Digital Only
The U.S. has seen explosive growth in online sports betting and measured expansion of iGaming. APAC’s digital posture varies widely. Each path shows digital channels being addressed head-on, not ignored.
Public-Policy Levers: Payments, Advertising, And Safer-Gambling
Both sides increasingly use the same toolkit, KYC, geolocation, self-exclusion, payment controls, and stronger penalties for illegal operators. This convergence reflects shared policy goals: keep gambling within a supervised perimeter and reduce harm.
Model Laws & Iterative Reforms
U.s lawmakers circulate iGaming bills; APAC legislatures revise major statutes. Both regions iterate, rather than set and forget, as markets and technologies evolve.
Where They Still Differ
- Speed and scope of iGaming. The U.S. has cautiously expanded online casinos to seven states; many APAC countries prohibit online casinos domestically, keep it tightly constrained, or are still exploring new reforms.
- Centralisation in selected markets. Some APAC jurisdictions retain stronger central control, whereas most U.S. states use arms-length regulators and do not have a state gaming operator.
- Criminal-law posture. Mainland China and South Korea maintain robust criminal prohibitions, very different to the U.S. model of regulated availability.
Conclusion
In both America and APAC, gambling policy is increasingly local in execution and national in constraints. That’s why, despite very different legal cultures, the two regions are beginning to look alike: central governments define the perimeter; state-level actors build the house. For players, there can be vastly different legal realities depending on where you sit. For policymakers and operators, it means the winning formula is the same on both sides of the Pacific: legislate clearly, regulate tightly, enforce consistently and be ready to adapt as the market evolves.
