Why New York Became the Test Case
When New York’s Attorney General dropped cease-and-desist letters to 26 sweepstakes casino operators in June 2025, it wasn’t just a state flex. It was a shot heard across the sweepstakes world. Suddenly, operators across the nation were on high alert. States like California, New Jersey, and Ohio began crafting similar bills or enforcement strategies.
That’s where NEXT.io and testing specialists TESTA stepped in. They didn’t just want to know if bans existed, they wanted to know if these bans were actually working. So, they picked the loudest, most influential battleground in the country, New York, and got testing.
What Was Tested and How
To get genuine results, TESTA relied on hands-on, in-state testing. Three testers, real internet service providers in New York (AT&T and Level 3), and regular laptops with Chrome—no VPNs, no gimmicks.
Each tester attempted the full player journey across 16 of the banned platforms:
- Navigate to the platform
- Register a new account
- Access the games lobby
- Play slots – or try to in both Gold Coin and Sweeps Coin modes
All actions were logged, notes taken, and screens recorded. The testing did have some limits—like not testing every device or all New York ISPs—but the goal was real-world relevance. If players in New York could still get in, regulators needed proof, and that’s what this delivered.
Blocked or Not? The Confusing Results
| What Happened | Number of Platforms |
| Fully blocked access | 3 |
| Allowed Gold Coin or lobby access | 10 |
| Mixed bag—one tester blocked, others not | 5 |
| Slipped through to Sweeps Coin deposit prompt | 2 |
| Full access to SC mode—blatant breach | 1 |
Yes, one platform actually let testers play in Sweeps Coin mode, which is a clear violation of the New York ban. Others weren’t much better. While most sites put up at least some roadblocks, a few left backdoors wide open. Two platforms, for instance, didn’t fully enable sweepstakes play but still teased users with prompts to deposit Sweeps Coins, just enough to stir interest and nudge players toward the edge.
Why Enforcement Falls Short
You’d think geo-blocking should be a solid barrier. But in truth, it’s often fragile:
- IP-based blocks can fail due to things like CDN caching or misrouted mobile IPs
- The Homepage may be blocked, but the game page loads
- Front and back-end enforcement often lacks coordination
- Some platforms don’t use GPS-level checks or device fingerprinting like licensed sportsbooks do
So while things might look locked down on the surface, cracks in the system let more slip through than anyone’s admitting.
What This Means for Players
This isn’t just testing platforms, it’s uncovering exposure risk:
- Operators: “Quiet” access is still exposure. If a New York user can navigate to lobby, see GC flows with SC promos, or – worst case – enter SC play, you’ve got risk.
- Regulators: Letters are a start; audits with reproducible evidence (timestamps, URLs, request IDs) are what make bans enforceable.
- Players: If you can reach SC pathways from New York, you’re stepping into legal gray – or red -zones.
Bottom Line
Paper bans aren’t enough, real-world edge-case testing is the only way to shine light on blind spots. If regulators want enforceable bans, they need verifiable, real-world testing.
NEXT.io and TESTA’s work shows that enforcement can feel solid on paper while still falling short in reality. If sweepstakes gaming is going to be meaningfully restricted, enforcement needs to be verified, end-to-end, in the wild.
Blaise Luis
