The Sweepstakes Debate
Indiana is facing a choice many states have already wrestled with: shut sweepstakes-style games down entirely, or try to bring them under control.
That debate took center stage on January 5, when lawmakers heard testimony on House Bill 1052, a proposal that would ban online social games with sweepstakes promotions, often referred to as “Social Plus” games. The bill targets platforms restricted to players 21 and over and would effectively wipe out sweepstakes-style gaming in the state.
Not everyone thinks that’s the right move.
SGLA Steps In
The Social Gaming Leadership Alliance (SGLA) has emerged as one of the strongest voices opposing an outright ban. Rather than shutting sweepstakes games down, the group is urging Indiana lawmakers to consider regulation, arguing it would bring clearer oversight, stronger consumer protections, and meaningful revenue for the state.
“Social Plus games are a safe, legal form of entertainment that has been operating responsibly in Indiana since 2012,” said Sean Ostrow, Managing Director of the SGLA, in a statement. Ostrow warned that HB 1052, as written, would criminalize businesses trying to comply with the law while doing little to stop illegal operators that already operate outside it.
According to SGLA, banning regulated platforms wouldn’t eliminate demand, it would simply push players toward less transparent alternatives.
The Case for Regulation
SGLA’s argument isn’t just about principle, it’s also about money.
The group estimates that a regulated sweepstakes framework could bring in more than $20 million a year for Indiana through player purchase taxes and operator registration fees. That revenue could be used to fund oversight and consumer protections rather than relying on enforcement after the fact.
Under SGLA’s proposal, regulation would come with a clear set of rules around age verification, data privacy, and responsible gameplay. The idea is to set boundaries early on, rather than trying to clean things up after problems arise.
Why Lawmakers Are Skeptical
Supporters of HB 1052 see the issue very differently.
From their perspective, sweepstakes-style games look and behave too much like online casinos, and regulation wouldn’t fix that basic problem. An outright ban is the simplest way to protect consumers and avoid gray-area gambling altogether.
But even within the industry, there’s concern about how broad the bill is.
During the hearing, Dan Marks, CFO of ARB Interactive, warned lawmakers that sweeping bans can backfire. He argues that if legitimate operators leave, players won’t stop playing, instead they’d migrate to offshore sites that offer fewer protections and no accountability.
Lloyd Melnick, Chief Growth Officer at VGW, made a similar point, arguing that regulation can safeguard consumers without wiping out companies that are trying to operate responsibly.
Indiana Isn’t Alone
Indiana isn’t the only state wrestling with how to handle sweepstakes-style games. During testimony on HB 1052, lawmakers noted that nine states, including Indiana, are considering legislation to ban sweepstakes games in 2026.
Other states have already taken action, though in different ways. California and New York passed outright bans. Tennessee leaned on enforcement actions. Maryland sent cease-and-desist letters. Alabama is seeing a surge of lawsuits.
Where Indiana lands could influence how other states approach sweepstakes legislation in 2026.
What Happens Next
House Bill 1052 is still working its way through the legislature, and SGLA has made clear it plans to stay involved as the debate continues. Lawmakers now face a familiar question: whether regulation is still politically workable, or whether bans have become the default response.
For operators, the bill would determine whether they can continue operating in Indiana at all. For players, it would shape where and how sweepstakes-style games remain available.
Indiana’s decision won’t happen in isolation. How the state handles sweepstakes gaming could influence how other legislatures approach the issue in 2026 and beyond.
Blaise Luis
