California’s Anti-Sweepstakes Bill Clears Key Hurdle, Advances to Full Senate Vote

A Contentious Path Through the Legislature

The bill’s journey has been a contentious one. It began its life as a technical measure related to the timelines for reviewing tribal gaming compacts. However, in June, it was fundamentally altered in the Senate through a “gut-and-amend” process, transforming it into a broad prohibition on sweepstakes gaming.

Because of this significant change, even if the bill passes the full Senate, it will have to return to the Assembly for another series of votes. The Assembly will need to concur with the amended version, which is substantially different from the one it originally passed in the spring.

The legislative deadline for passing bills this year is September 12. However, California operates on a two-year legislative cycle, meaning that if the bill does not complete its journey by then, it can be taken up again when the legislature reconvenes in 2026.

The Core of the Bill: Banning a Business Model

If enacted, AB 831 would make it a misdemeanor to operate or promote an online sweepstakes casino in California. The penalties would include up to a year in jail and fines ranging from $1,000 to $25,000.

The legislation is aimed at protecting the exclusive gaming rights of California’s tribal nations, who argue that unregulated sweepstakes operators are circumventing state law and undermining the integrity of the state’s gaming policies. Proponents contend that these sites are essentially offering illegal online gambling under the guise of a promotional sweepstakes.

A Growing Opposition and Unintended Consequences

Despite the strong support from major tribes, the bill has faced a growing chorus of opposition. Several smaller, more rural tribal nations, including the Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo Indians and the Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation, have come out against the ban. They argue it would harm their economic independence by eliminating a viable path to revenue diversification, especially for tribes without large, established brick-and-mortar casinos.

The bill has also drawn criticism for its potential financial impact on the state itself. A government analysis concluded that the criminalization provisions in the bill could impose “potentially significant” financial burdens on the state’s Department of Justice, court system, and local counties.

Furthermore, questions have been raised about a potential conflict of interest involving Assemblymember James Ramos. Ramos, who sits on a committee that will decide the bill’s fate, is a member of the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, a primary sponsor of AB 831, and receives significant annual income from the tribe.

As the bill heads to the Senate floor, the debate is intensifying, pitting the state’s most powerful tribal gaming interests against a coalition of smaller tribes, sweepstakes operators, and civil liberties groups who argue the bill is a flawed and overly broad solution to a complex issue.