A Letter Focused on Sovereignty
In testimony to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Big Lagoon Chair Virgil Moorehead argued that the bill was drafted without adequate consultation and would cut off digital opportunities for tribes that lack casinos. Moorehead described AB 831 as the product of a “gut-and-amend” process that left smaller communities vulnerable while reinforcing the market position of large gaming tribes.
“For tribes without casinos, digital platforms may be the only viable option to generate revenue for housing, healthcare, and education,” he wrote, warning that the measure undermines sovereignty by narrowing the choices available to tribal governments.
The VGW–Kletsel Alliance
The opposition first surfaced in early August when the Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation signed a conditional partnership with VGW, the Australian-based operator of Chumba Casino, LuckyLand, and Global Poker. The deal with the tribe’s economic development authority would allow VGW to run social-style games, including sweepstakes promotions, within California.
VGW founder and CEO Laurence Escalante framed the partnership as a way to “support long-term economic opportunities” for tribes without access to traditional casino projects.
What’s at Stake
The disagreement underscores a deeper divide within Indian Country. Larger casino-owning tribes have long sought to block sweepstakes operators, citing consumer protection and competition concerns. Smaller or rural tribes, however, see digital platforms as a rare path to economic independence.
The dispute also raises questions about how California lawmakers engage tribes when crafting legislation. Several tribal leaders have argued that pushing AB 831 without broader consultation risks weakening trust at a time when tribes remain central to gaming policy in the state.
Next Steps for AB 831
The bill cleared the Governmental Organization and Public Safety committees with unanimous support but stalled on the Senate Appropriations “Suspense File,” where measures with fiscal or policy complications often linger. The renewed tribal opposition could make its path to passage more uncertain.
Whether AB 831 advances or not, the debate signals a growing split among California tribes over how digital gaming should fit into their economic strategies.
Blaise Luis
