Chavdar Vasilev is a gambling news writer with several years of experience in the iGaming industry. He started creating promotional content but soon found he loved reporting on the industry itself. Since then, he’s delivered...
Read Full BioAs a bill aiming to ban sweepstakes casinos in California advances through the legislature, a broad coalition, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Social & Promotional Games Association (SPGA), has joined forces in opposition.
Assembly Bill 831 (AB 831), sponsored by Assemblymember Avelino Valencia, passed through its second major hurdle on July 15. It passed through the Senate Public Safety Committee with a 6-0 vote. Last week, the Senate Governmental Organization Committee advanced the proposed legislation with a 15-0 vote.
AB 831 now moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee, which has an upcoming meeting on August 18.
Bill Opposition Grows
AB 831 receives significant backing from tribal gaming representatives and industry associations such as the American Gaming Association and the Sports Betting Alliance. However, it’s also gathering a large coalition of opponents including the SPGA, which represents the interests of sweepstakes casinos and advocates for responsible social casino gaming.
On July 14, the SPGA announced that several high-profile organizations have joined efforts against the bill:
- ACLU California Action
- American Transaction Processors Coalition
- Association of National Advertisers
- Californians United for a Responsible Budget
- SPGA
- Social Gaming Leadership Alliance
- Virtual Gaming World
These groups represent a wide range of interests, from civil liberties to major corporate brands. For example, Google, General Mills, and NBCUniversal are members of the Association of National Advertisers.
Meanwhile, the American Transaction Processors Coalition represents financial institutions like Bank of America and Paysafe.
In a press release, SPGA emphasized the importance of this broad coalition, stating:
“This diverse coalition, including civil liberties advocates, leading businesses, and industry groups, reflects a shared belief that the bill, as written, could have unintended consequences for lawful promotional practices without offering clear consumer protections.”
Opponents have criticized the bill’s overly broad, rushed, and risky language, which was introduced via a “gut-and-amend” process that allowed for sweeping changes late in the legislative cycle.
Critics argue that the bill’s expansive provisions risk criminalizing not only operators but also suppliers, payment processors, and celebrity endorsers.
Proponents Stress Tribal Sovereignty and Consumer Protection
As with prior hearings, proponents of the ban included tribal gaming groups. They include the Yuhaaviatam of the San Manuel Nation, the California Nations Indian Gaming Association (CNIGA), and the Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations (TASIN).
They argue that they hold exclusive rights to regulated gambling in California. Sweepstakes casinos undermine this exclusivity by operating illegally.
San Bernardino County District Attorney Jason Anderson spoke in favor of the prohibition. He noted that sweepstakes casinos lack consumer protection tools to prevent minors from accessing the platforms.
Anderson indicated that multiple states have now banned sweepstakes casinos.
He also clarified that the AB 831 language does not prohibit traditional sweepstakes. Furthermore, he added that the bill and the District Attorney’s office are not interested in penalizing players, but the operators, which are often offshore companies.
Legal Concerns and Planned Amendments
In opposition, Duane Morris partner Bill Gantz pointed out that some tribal groups operate social casinos with prizes of real-world value without any regulation or oversight.
He argued that there’s no evidence to support the claims of potential risks associated with the platforms. He added that they operate within California’s laws.
Meanwhile, in a written statement, the ACLU California Action warned that the bill’s broad language could potentially criminalize individuals involved in legitimate online sweepstakes, not just operators of sweepstakes casinos.
Responding to these concerns, the bill sponsor told the committee that upcoming amendments will clarify the bill’s scope:
“Things like payment processors, financial institutions, geolocation providers, media affiliates and also individuals would not be held liable if this bill were to pass. This is solely going to focus on the entities that are providing the sweepstakes types of platforms.”
The committee chair, Senator Jesse Arreguín, added that committee members and Valencia were able to come up with amendments that will focus on the operators and not other businesses and individuals.
