Goodbye Sweepstakes?
California’s AB 831 took a fast track this summer, aimed at banning online sweepstakes casinos that use virtual coins to mimic gambling. With tribal backing behind it, the bill cruised through committee. But once civil-rights and industry voices weighed in, lawmakers made surprise course corrections to avoid sweeping up the wrong targets.
Momentum & Tribal Solidarity Set the Stage
California’s AB 831 burst onto the scene with surprising momentum. In the Senate Public Safety Committee, it cruised through with a unanimous 6–0 vote, which was proof of lawmakers’ determination to clamp down on sweepstakes-style casino platforms and the networks that support them.
But the real thunder came from tribal leaders. The California Nations Indian Gaming Association, San Manuel Nation, and TASIN all threw their weight behind the bill, warning that these virtual casinos aren’t just games, they’re encroaching on hard-won tribal gaming rights.
With tribal gaming generating a whopping $25 billion and sustaining 112,000 jobs, their backing didn’t just add moral authority. It gave AB 831 rocket fuel to boost its momentum.
Backlash Builds: Critics Sound the Alarm
As AB 831 picked up steam, the blowback wasn’t far behind. A fast-growing lineup of civil rights defenders, industry voices, and digital economy advocates began calling foul.
Leading the charge was Jeff Duncan of the Social Gaming Leadership Alliance (SGLA). The former Congressman didn’t mince words—he warned the bill’s current wording was a literal minefield. With its vague language and wide sweeping reach, it could unintentionally target apps and games that have nothing to do with gambling.
His advice? Pump the brakes. He urged California to treat AB 831 as a two-year project—bringing in more voices, more scrutiny, and less chance of wrecking something that actually works for businesses and players.
Then the ACLU of California stepped in, raising the volume on civil liberties concerns. They weren’t shy about it—calling out what they saw as wildly disproportionate penalties baked into the bill. We’re talking jail time that could double, fines exploding by 2,500%, and rules so vague they could trap everyday users who clicked on a promo without knowing it was off-limits. That’s not smart enforcement, they argued, that’s just bad policy.
And it wasn’t just civil rights advocates sounding the alarm. Heavyweights from the business world jumped in too. The Association of National Advertisers, American Transaction Processors Coalition, and other major players repping payment networks and tech firms all had the same message: this bill could shut down legit promotions, kneecap California’s digital economy, and do more harm than good. They also urged legislators to slow down, as this law is too vague, too broad, and way too risky.
Big Changes: Players Are Safe
Under pressure from civil-rights groups and tech advocates, California lawmakers hit the brakes and tweaked AB 831 midstream:
- They scrubbed the word “person” out of the liability section, so that casual players aren’t on the hook.
- They inserted “knowingly support”, meaning only people or businesses that intend to enable sweepstakes casino operations can face penalties.
- They also tightened the phrasing around “promote,” removing the vague wording that could’ve roped in influencers, media affiliates, even someone just running ads. And narrowing it down to only operators and suppliers.
As San Bernardino District Attorney Jason Anderson summed it up: “This law isn’t about punishing players—it’s about stopping offshore operators.”
What’s Next? All Eyes on August
With the amendments in place, AB 831 now heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee, where it faces its next big test on August 18.
Expect the lobbying to heat up. Tribal groups will push to keep enforcement sharp. Tech, media, and ad advocates will fight for clearer carve-outs. And civil rights groups will be watching the fine print closely to make sure consumers don’t get caught in the crossfire.
Blaise Luis
