Over the past several years, legislatures from California to Massachusetts have looked into online gambling legalization, and while progress has been slow, there has been progress. But there is a newfound fear among some online gaming advocates that daily fantasy sports is stealing their spotlight.

Nevada, Delaware, and New Jersey have all legalized online poker, with New Jersey and Delaware also legalizing online casino games. All three states launched their online sites in 2013, and the general feeling was, this was just the beginning.

And in Pennsylvania, California, Mississippi, Washington State, Massachusetts, and New York, online gaming legalization bills have been considered, but thus far, no other state has passed an online gambling bill since New Jersey in February of 2013.

And now people fear that online gambling will be taking a backseat to DFS.

The notion that online gambling legalization will play second fiddle to daily fantasy sports isn’t wholly unfounded; there are plenty of logical reasons for this attitude.

DFS trumps online gambling because…

… DFS is front and center (for better or worse) in major newspapers and media outlets around the country, from the New York Times and Boston Globe, to Time Magazine and the now infamous Frontline DFS expose. DFS has invaded every demographic. Anecdotally, I’ve found myself talking DFS with everyone from senior citizens to high school kids in pretty much every setting imaginable.

… In most locales, DFS currently resides in what can best be described as a quasi-legal state that makes legalizing DFS much easier than traditional online gambling, which requires legislators to go from prohibition to legalization, since it’s expressly prohibited in most of these places. In essence, legalizing DFS isn’t expanding gaming, it’s simply regulating an existing industry that many people feel is already legal.

… Online gambling revenue has proven to a fraction of what state’s initially anticipated, while DFS sites have used the words billions in their advertising, which has likely pricked up the ears of many lawmakers – even if the realized revenue from legalizing DFS would likely be much smaller than online gambling, the use of the word billions has caught the attention of many people.

For all of these reasons and probably a few others, DFS is believed to supersede online gambling in statehouses, in terms of importance.

In California this definitely appeared to be the case early on, as a joint DFS, sports betting, and online poker hearing held in January was pared down to just DFS, causing online poker supporters to cry foul. However, it now appears DFS talks have rekindled online poker talks.

In fact, online poker is now considered to have a reasonable chance of passing, and if it wasn’t for DFS leapfrogging online poker for a New York minute, we might not be this far along.

So far, DFS has had the opposite impact on online gaming

And California isn’t the only place where DFS and online gaming efforts have managed to coexist, or even feed off of one another.

Since the outset I’ve harbored the contrarian view that the newfound focus on DFS would help move online gaming legalization efforts along.

My feelings are this could happen in one of two ways:

• Online gaming and DFS could be included in some type of omnibus gaming reform package – this is currently being discussed in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.
• If seen to their conclusion, the DFS debates could segue right into online gambling debates, as the two issues share many similarities (from consumer protections to geolocation technology), and getting lawmakers up to speed would be much easier.

In Pennsylvania, Representative George Dunbar has already introduced a DFS bill, but the bill currently stipulates DFS sites would only be offered through the state’s existing brick & mortar casinos, which would make it a simple add to HB 649, a bill that expands gambling in several different ways, including authorizing online gambling.

In Massachusetts things are even further along, as Attorney General Maura Healey has proposed a number of regulations, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission has introduced a white paper on DFS that also examines the omnibus approach to regulation.

The New York Senate Racing, Gaming and Wagering Committee recently passed an online poker bill, which occurred while State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is embroiled in a legal battle with DraftKings and FanDuel.

This isn’t to say DFS will definitely help online gambling, but it seems like an overlooked possibility, and based on what’s taking place in California, and to a lesser extent in Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts, I think the theory that DFS could pull online gaming across the finish line in some states where the issue already has some legs.