California’s Anti-Sweepstakes Bill Amended to Narrow Scope, Add ‘Knowingly’ Clause
California’s controversial bill to ban online sweepstakes casinos, AB 831, has been amended in the State Senate to narrow its scope and add a key legal protection for third-party service providers. The changes, made during the bill’s third reading, are a clear response to a growing chorus of criticism from a diverse group of opponents who argued the original language was overly broad and could have significant unintended consequences.
A More Targeted Prohibition
The latest version of AB 831 includes several key changes designed to clarify its intent and limit its reach. A central amendment now specifies that the law will only apply to individuals or entities that “knowingly and intentionally”engage in, promote, or facilitate online sweepstakes games.
This “knowingly” clause is a significant addition. It is intended to shield ancillary service providers—such as game developers, payment processors, and media affiliates—from criminal liability if they are unknowingly or unintentionally associated with a sweepstakes operation. Under the new language, these third parties would only face penalties if they are found to be actively and deliberately supporting what the state deems an illegal gambling enterprise.
Carve-Outs for Legitimate Promotions
Another major amendment addresses a key concern raised by opponents: that the bill was so broadly written it could have outlawed a wide range of common and legitimate consumer promotions. The new language creates a specific carve-out for these activities.
The bill now clarifies that it will not penalize “promotional games or sweepstakes conducted by for-profit commercial entities on a limited and occasional basis” when they are used as an advertising tool and are “incidental to a substantial, bona fide sale of consumer products or services.”
This change is a direct response to warnings from groups like the Social Gaming Leadership Alliance (SGLA), which had pointed out that even a charitable promotion by the Make-A-Wish Foundation could have been banned under the bill’s original, vague language.
The Ongoing Legislative Battle
The amendments come as the bill continues its contentious journey through the legislature. The original version was a technical measure related to tribal gaming compacts before it was “gutted and amended” into a sweeping prohibition on sweepstakes gaming.
The bill is heavily backed by a coalition of California’s most powerful tribal nations, who argue that sweepstakes casinos are a form of illegal online gambling that infringes upon their exclusive gaming rights. However, it has faced strong opposition from a growing number of smaller, rural tribes who see digital gaming as a key to economic development. They are joined by a diverse group of opponents, including the long-standing sweepstakes operator Publishers Clearing House and the California Cities Gaming Authority, which represents the state’s card rooms.
Previous amendments to the bill have already removed language that could have criminalized individual players. With these latest changes, the bill’s focus is now squarely on the operators and the third parties that knowingly support their operations. The amended bill has been sent back for a second reading in the Senate before it can proceed to a final floor vote.
Recommended