What the Bill Does
AB 831 defines an “online sweepstakes game” as any digital platform that:
- Uses a dual-currency model, such as “Gold Coins” for fun play and “Sweeps Coins” redeemable for prizes.
- Simulates casino-style games, including slots, blackjack, or poker.
- Offers players a chance to win money or cash equivalents.
Under the bill, operating or promoting such games in California would be a misdemeanor offense. Penalties could range from fines of $1,000 to $25,000 to up to one year in county jail. The legislation includes carve-outs for the state lottery and traditional promotional sweepstakes like McDonald’s Monopoly or Starbucks Rewards.
Supporters Cite Consumer Protection
Backers of AB 831, including major tribal gaming groups, frame the bill as a consumer protection measure. They argue that sweepstakes casinos exploit regulatory loopholes, offering real-money-style gaming without the safeguards applied to licensed operators.
Tribal leaders also emphasize that unregulated platforms undermine voter-approved gaming compacts. They point to the economic scale of tribal gaming in California, which generates nearly $25 billion annually and supports over 112,000 jobs statewide. From this perspective, the ban is seen as reinforcing the existing legal framework and protecting both consumers and tribal sovereignty.
Industry and Civil Liberties Groups Push Back
The Social Gaming Leadership Alliance (SGLA) has been one of the most vocal opponents of AB 831. The group argues that lawmakers rushed the bill through with little debate and vague language that could unintentionally ensnare loyalty programs, payment processors, or affiliate marketers.
“If sweepstakes casinos were truly illegal, there’d be no need for new legislation,” SGLA Executive Director Jeff Duncan said in a statement. The group also accuses lawmakers of dismissing economic evidence, including projections that regulation—not prohibition—could deliver $149 million per year in sales tax revenue for California. That figure comes from industry analyses such as those by Eilers & Krejcik Gaming and operators like VGW.
Civil liberties advocates have raised similar concerns. The ACLU of California, for example, has questioned whether the bill’s broad definitions could threaten promotional sweepstakes that have long been legal in the state.
Tribes Divided
While the state’s largest casino-operating tribes back AB 831, not all tribal nations agree. Leaders from smaller, rural tribes such as the Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation, Sherwood Valley Rancheria, Big Lagoon Rancheria, and Mechoopda Indian Tribe have voiced opposition. For these groups, social gaming is viewed as one of the few available economic lifelines.
Eric Wright, CEO of the Kletsel Economic Development Authority, argued that the ban could worsen inequality: “Shutting down sweepstakes casinos doesn’t just remove opportunity – it chips away at tribal sovereignty.”
What’s at Stake for Players
If the bill is signed, sweepstakes operators would be forced to halt operations in California. For players, this could mean losing access to favorite platforms and possibly forfeiting coin balances. The extent of consumer losses remains unclear, as operators may adjust terms or allow redemptions before exit.
The financial impact on the state is also contested. While supporters argue the industry is unregulated and risky, opponents estimate that banning it could eliminate close to $1 billion in economic activity – a figure that remains unverified outside of industry sources.
What Happens Next
Governor Newsom has until October 12 to sign or veto the bill. If signed, California would become the largest state yet to outlaw sweepstakes casinos, potentially setting a precedent for other states.
The move could also invite legal challenges from operators, industry groups, or smaller tribes, as well as continued lobbying efforts to replace prohibition with regulation.
Blaise Luis
