Assembly Bill 831, laws designed to prohibit sweepstakes casinos utilizing dual-currency fashions, has cleared one other important step in California’s legislature. The Senate Committee on Public Safety gave the measure unanimous approval in a 6-0 vote, sending it ahead to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Sponsored by Assemblymember Avelino Valencia, AB 831 particularly targets sweepstakes platforms that supply currencies like Gold Coins and Sweeps Coins—fashions utilized by main operators resembling Chumba Casino and LuckyLand Slots. According to Valencia, these platforms “circumvent the will of the voters and sidestep the state’s gaming framework.”
Concerns from tribes and regulation enforcement over unregulated playing:
During the listening to, Valencia affirmed that the invoice had been amended to deal with potential overreach. Changes included provisions shielding people and third-party service suppliers—resembling monetary establishments, associates, and geolocation corporations—from legal responsibility in the event that they unknowingly help sweepstakes platforms. He emphasised that AB 831 shouldn’t be meant to penalize customers. “This is solely going to focus on the entities that are providing the sweepstakes types of platforms,” he informed the committee.
Valencia and different supporters argue that unregulated sweepstakes casinos current dangers to California’s tribal gaming system and public welfare. In testimony earlier than the Senate, Johnny Hernandez, vice chairman of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, said, “The dual-currency model creates a dangerous environment where Californians, especially young and vulnerable users, are exposed to real-money, gambling-like experiences with none of the consumer protections.”
He additional clarified that whereas San Manuel affords its personal social on line casino platform, it’s free to play, lacks dual-currency mechanics, and doesn’t present money prizes.
San Bernardino County District Attorney Jason Anderson additionally voiced help for the invoice, citing youth vulnerability within the digital age. “Increased access to online gambling and virtual betting, coupled with the lack of strong age verification safeguards, puts our youth at serious risk of developing crippling gambling addiction,” Anderson testified.
Anderson addressed public considerations that the invoice might criminalize gamers, stating, “We’re not seeking to penalize the player. Provisions in this bill are only intended to penalize the companies, often offshore, which are the source of this illegal gambling.”
Supporters highlighted that California voters had granted Native American tribes unique gaming rights greater than 25 years in the past. According to Valencia, tribal gaming has delivered over $25 billion to the state and created greater than 112,000 jobs. Allowing unregulated sweepstakes platforms to flourish, he argued, undermines that voter mandate.
Industry opposition rallies broad coalition in opposition to invoice:
Despite its momentum, AB 831 faces rising resistance. The Social and Promotional Games Association (SPGA), Social Gaming Leadership Alliance (SGLA), and different opponents argue the invoice’s broad language might endanger lawful advertising and marketing promotions and sweepstakes unrelated to playing.
Bill Gantz, an legal professional representing the SGLA, challenged the premise that sweepstakes casinos are unlawful. “It’s just like a lot of other sweepstakes,” he stated. “People can make a purchase to enter, but they can also enter for free.” Gantz additionally questioned the dearth of proof introduced to display hurt, calling on lawmakers to check the sector slightly than rush to outlaw it. He added that regulating sweepstakes might generate $149 million yearly in gross sales tax income for California.
Opponents additionally criticized tribal teams for what they see as selective enforcement. “The testimony claiming our industry lacks age verification is not only false – it’s hypocritical,” the SGLA said, referencing San Manuel’s personal social on line casino, which they declare lacks age verification.
Backing from civil liberties and company entities has given the opposition additional credibility. The SPGA has aligned itself with the American Civil Liberties Union of California and the Association of National Advertisers, which incorporates corporations like Google and NBCUniversal. Together, these organizations argue that the invoice might unintentionally disrupt authorized promotional exercise.
“The bill, as written, could have unintended consequences for lawful promotional practices without offering clear consumer protections,” an SPGA spokesperson stated.
According to Sweepsy, within the weeks main as much as the Senate listening to, platforms resembling Chumba Casino and Golden Hearts Games inspired California gamers to contact lawmakers. One message from Chumba warned customers that AB 831 “would take away your freedom to play the games you love.” By early July, almost 20,000 such actions had been recorded.
Golden Hearts Games’ messaging went additional, calling the invoice “government overreach” and arguing it might push gamers towards unregulated, offshore platforms.
After clearing each the Senate Governmental Organization Committee and the Public Safety Committee, AB 831 will subsequent be reviewed by the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 18. If it progresses from there, the invoice will nonetheless want ultimate approval from each legislative chambers and the signature of Governor Gavin Newsom to develop into regulation.
With legislative classes working by way of September, however payments allowed to hold into 2026 if mandatory, the talk over California’s strategy to on-line sweepstakes casinos is way from over.
