Filed June 1 — In Committee
Rep. Waxman introduced HB 2557 on June 1, 2026. It was referred to the House Gaming Oversight Committee. The bill does not set a tax rate and does not legalize skill games by itself.
22 Days to June 30
Pennsylvania’s constitutional budget deadline is June 30, 2026. The PA Supreme Court has not ruled. Three competing tax bills remain in play. HB 2557 is the consumer protection layer that can attach to any of them.
Supreme Court — Still Waiting
Oral arguments were heard in November 2025. As of June 8, 2026, no opinion has been issued. Lawmakers have publicly confirmed they will not advance skill games legislation until the court rules.
What HB 2557 Actually Contains: Five Specific Provisions
Prior skill games bills in Pennsylvania have described consumer protections in general terms — “responsible gaming requirements,” “PGCB oversight,” “monitoring.” HB 2557 is different. It specifies numbers, mechanisms, and enforcement tools. Here is what the bill actually says.
Age 21+ with Identity Verification
A player must be at least 21 years old to use a covered device, and that age must be confirmed through identity verification — not a self-attestation. This is the same standard used at Pennsylvania’s licensed casinos.
$250 Daily Loss Limit (Default Maximum)
Before beginning any session, a player must establish a daily loss limit. The bill sets the default at no more than $250 per day. Regulators may set a lower threshold — but not a higher one. The machine enforces the limit automatically.
Play-Speed Controls: Two Layers
A minimum 5-second waiting period is required between the initiation of plays. Additionally, the machine must impose an automatic 30-second suspension after 15 consecutive minutes of play. Both controls are mandatory.
Location Restriction: Licensed Establishments Only
A covered device may not be placed “on the premises of a gas station or a convenience store.” Only liquor-licensed establishments and PGCB-approved gaming areas restricted to 21+ patrons are eligible host venues.
PGCB Centralized Monitoring System
All covered devices must connect to a centralized monitoring system administered by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board. The system records wagers and payouts in real time, enforces loss limits and self-exclusion orders, and allows regulators to remotely disable noncompliant machines.
HB 2557 also establishes a statewide self-exclusion program covering all covered skill game devices, prohibits marketing directed at individuals under 21, and requires responsible gambling training for employees at host locations that offer covered devices.
About 80,000 skill game terminals are currently operating in Pennsylvania without any of these requirements in place. There is no centralized monitoring, no mandatory loss limit, no age gate beyond whatever a host venue informally enforces, and no play-speed controls. HB 2557 would change all of that — but only after a separate legal and tax framework is enacted first.
The Critical Caveat: HB 2557 Doesn’t Legalize Anything on Its Own
This is the provision that tends to get underreported: HB 2557 would not legalize skill games by itself. The bill is explicitly structured to take effect only if Pennsylvania lawmakers separately enact a legal and tax structure for the machines. HB 2557 is the “how they operate” bill. Some other bill — SB 1079, SB 756, or a version of Shapiro’s 52% budget proposal — is the “whether they’re legal and how they’re taxed” bill.
This two-track structure is intentional. By separating the consumer protection framework from the tax and legalization fight, Waxman created a bill that legislators on both sides of the rate debate can support without first resolving the revenue question. It is designed to build consensus, not to adjudicate the central fiscal dispute. The practical effect is that HB 2557’s consumer protection provisions are highly likely to end up in whatever bill ultimately passes — whether as a standalone companion bill, as amendments attached in committee, or as provisions absorbed into SB 1079 or SB 756.
What Each Provision Means for Operators
The five requirements in HB 2557 have concrete business consequences. Here is the operator-level translation of each.
The Gas Station and Convenience Store Ban
- If HB 2557 is enacted in its current form, machines currently located at gas stations and convenience stores must be removed from those premises. There is no grandfather provision in the current draft.
- Operators with significant placements in those location types should begin evaluating alternatives now. Relocation to a liquor-licensed bar, tavern, or restaurant requires finding new host venues, negotiating placement agreements, and scheduling installation. That process takes weeks, not days.
- The ban targets the location category that Virginia’s ABC Authority data — cited in Governor Spanberger’s April 2026 veto of Virginia’s SB 661 — identified as disproportionately serving lower-income communities. Pennsylvania regulators are aware of that data. Expect the ban to survive any amendment process.
The Age-21 Identity Verification Requirement
- Pennsylvania’s legal drinking age is 21, which is by design: HB 2557 restricts covered devices to liquor-licensed establishments, which already require 21+ entry. The practical age-check burden falls largely on the host venue rather than on the machine itself.
- Operators should confirm with each host venue that their current ID verification procedures would satisfy the bill’s requirement. A liquor-licensed bar that checks ID at the door satisfies the standard. A venue that only checks ID when ordering a drink may not.
- For operators currently running machines at locations without consistent age verification, this provision requires either a change in host venue policy or a change in placement location.
The $250 Daily Loss Limit
- The default loss limit of $250 per player per day is a player-protective measure, not a revenue cap. A machine can still receive $250 from one player, $250 from a second, and $250 from a third on the same day — there is no daily ceiling on machine revenue from multiple players.
- What the provision does is eliminate the scenario where a single player can lose substantially more than $250 in a day at an unmonitored terminal. For most legitimate placements, where most players stay within the $250 range naturally, the practical revenue impact is limited.
- High-traffic locations that have historically seen individual players spend significantly above $250 in a single session should model the impact. The limit enforces an upper bound that did not previously exist.
- The loss limit is enforced via the centralized monitoring system. That means session data is tracked, associated with a verified player identity, and reported in real time to the PGCB — which has implications for data privacy and operator record-keeping beyond just the limit itself.
Play-Speed Controls
- The 5-second minimum between plays slows the maximum theoretical play rate significantly. At the current unregulated pace, a player can initiate dozens of games per minute on many terminals. A mandatory 5-second interval reduces that to a maximum of 12 plays per minute.
- The 30-second suspension after 15 minutes of continuous play is a responsible gaming intervention designed to create a mandatory break. It is modeled on similar requirements in regulated gaming jurisdictions and is unlikely to change in any amended version of the bill.
- Neither play-speed control prevents a player from continuing to play after the pause. They are cooling-off mechanisms, not session caps. The business impact is a modest reduction in plays-per-hour for high-frequency players.
PGCB Centralized Monitoring
- Connecting to the PGCB’s centralized monitoring system is the largest infrastructure change in HB 2557. It requires each machine to have a functioning network connection and hardware capable of real-time data transmission to a state-administered system.
- Machines from established manufacturers — Banilla Games, JVL, Primero — are most likely to have viable upgrade paths to meet monitoring requirements. Gray-market or uncertified terminals almost certainly do not, and should be removed from service regardless of how the legislation proceeds.
- The monitoring connection also enables remote disablement. If a machine is found to be noncompliant, regulators can disable it without a site visit. Operators running clean, documented operations have nothing to fear from this provision. Operators running machines that would not survive scrutiny should treat it as a deadline to act.
Where HB 2557 Fits With 22 Days to June 30
The June 30 budget deadline creates a forcing function. Pennsylvania’s FY2026–27 budget, as proposed by Governor Shapiro, projects approximately $766 million in annual revenue from a 52% tax on skill game gross receipts. That projection is contingent on a court ruling, then legislative action, all within a rapidly shrinking window. Three bills are positioned to carry the legal and tax framework:
SB 1079 — Yaw/Williams Bipartisan Flat Fee ($500/Machine/Month)
- The flat-fee structure is the most operator-friendly approach on the table. Bipartisan co-sponsorship gives SB 1079 the best realistic odds of clearing a floor vote.
- HB 2557’s consumer protection provisions could be attached to SB 1079 in committee, producing a single bill that addresses both the tax structure and the operating rules. This combination is the most likely path to passage in both chambers.
SB 756 — Gebhard 35% Rate
- A 35% gross revenue tax paired with HB 2557’s consumer protection framework is the outcome most analysts consider the most likely final compromise if a budget deal happens before June 30. It generates more revenue than the Yaw flat fee while remaining more viable for operators than the Shapiro 52% rate.
Shapiro Budget Proposal — 52% Tax Rate
- Governor Shapiro’s FY2026–27 budget projects approximately $766 million annually from a 52% rate matching the casino slot tax. A budget deal that locks in 52% before the Supreme Court rules would almost certainly incorporate HB 2557’s consumer protections as political cover for the high rate.
Regardless of which tax vehicle moves, the consumer protection provisions of HB 2557 are likely to survive in some form. Legislators who have been cautious about skill games — particularly in suburban Philadelphia and Pittsburgh districts — have used the absence of consumer protections as their primary objection. HB 2557 answers that objection directly, giving moderates the cover to vote yes on a broader framework that includes it.
What Operators Should Do in the Next 22 Days
The combination of the pending Supreme Court ruling, the June 30 budget deadline, and the specific provisions in HB 2557 creates a definable preparation checklist. Operators who complete it now will be better positioned for licensing regardless of which bill passes first.
Audit Your Placement Portfolio by Location Type
- List every current machine placement and categorize each location: liquor-licensed establishment, gas station, convenience store, restaurant, veterans’ club, or other.
- Machines in gas stations and convenience stores are the highest-risk placements under HB 2557. Begin identifying replacement locations now — even if the bill does not pass before June 30, the placement ban is likely to appear in whatever regulatory framework eventually passes.
- Document host venue licensing status. Placements at liquor-licensed establishments will have the smoothest path through any regulatory framework. Placements at unlicensed locations should be flagged for review.
Assess Your Machine Inventory for Monitoring Compatibility
- Contact your equipment manufacturer or distributor and ask directly: can this terminal connect to a centralized monitoring system as described in HB 2557? Get a written response.
- Machines that cannot be upgraded for monitoring compatibility are a liability under any regulatory framework that includes PGCB oversight. Begin planning for replacement of those units now rather than under a post-enactment deadline.
- Certified machines from Banilla Games, JVL, and Primero that are current-generation models are most likely to have viable compliance paths. Older hardware may require replacement.
Review Host Venue Age Verification Practices
- Visit each host location and observe how they currently handle age verification at the point of entry or at the machine area.
- For liquor-licensed establishments, existing PLCB compliance practices typically include ID checking. Confirm that the practice applies to the area where machines are located, not only the bar counter.
- Document your review. If you have to demonstrate compliance in a licensing application, showing that you proactively assessed host venue age verification processes will matter.
Watch the House Gaming Oversight Committee
- HB 2557 is now in the House Gaming Oversight Committee. Committee schedule and hearing announcements are published at legis.state.pa.us. A committee vote or hearing is the first sign that the bill is moving.
- Stay current through our legislative updates and skill games FAQ. We will publish analysis the moment the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issues its ruling.
- Contact your state representative and state senator now — before any vote is scheduled. Legislators are more responsive to operator input before a vote is imminent than after it is on the calendar.
Pennsylvania’s skill games market has operated without any of HB 2557’s requirements for years. The bill’s introduction on June 1, 2026 marks the first time a Philadelphia Democrat has put specific numbers — the $250 cap, the 5-second interval, the 30-second break — into binding legislative language rather than general principle. That specificity tells operators exactly what the regulated environment will look like. The 22 days before the June 30 deadline are not wasted time. They are the preparation window that the court’s eventual ruling will close.