Publishers Clearing House Blasts California’s Anti-Sweepstakes Bill, Warns of Economic Harm
Publishers Clearing House (PCH), one of America’s most recognizable brands, has formally joined the opposition to a California bill that seeks to ban online sweepstakes games. In a strongly worded letter to state lawmakers, the company argued that the legislation, AB 831, is an anti-competitive measure that would criminalize a legitimate marketing tool, threaten California jobs, and erase hundreds of millions of dollars in economic impact.
A Legitimate Marketing Tool, Not Gambling
At the heart of PCH’s argument is the assertion that AB 831 fundamentally mischaracterizes its business model. The company contends that its online social games are not a form of gambling but rather a modern evolution of the lawful sweepstakes promotions used by mainstream brands like McDonald’s and Pepsi for decades.
“This bill seeks to criminalize legitimate online social games and sweepstakes promotions—marketing tools used by mainstream American brands…to engage millions of consumers, including over 1.5 million Californians,” the PCH letter states.
The company draws a clear line between its model and real-money gambling, explaining that the virtual tokens used in its games have no cash value and cannot be redeemed or traded. Crucially, PCH emphasizes that “no purchase is ever required,” as players always have access to free coins and alternative methods of entry.
A “Rushed” Bill Driven by “Anti-Competitive Motives”
PCH did not mince words about what it believes is the true motivation behind the bill. The company claims the legislation was not generated by evidence of consumer harm but by the “anti-competitive motives from brick-and-mortar casino operators” seeking to eliminate a form of competition.
The letter criticizes the legislative process, stating that the bill “lacks thorough stakeholder input, economic analysis, or evidence of harm.” This echoes the concerns raised by tribal opponents, who have also condemned the “gut-and-amend” process that transformed the bill into a broad prohibition without proper consultation.
The Threat to California’s Economy
Beyond the legal and procedural arguments, PCH issued a stark warning about the potential economic consequences of the bill. The company stated that it contributes “hundreds of millions of dollars annually to California’s economy through marketing, advertising, and technology sectors.”
The letter warns that “AB 831’s criminalization—not regulation—of our operations…threatens to eliminate good-paying jobs and erase this economic impact.”
The bill’s broad language also drew criticism. PCH noted that it could impose “unprecedented criminal liability” on a wide range of service providers, including payment processors and advertising firms, which would “stifle innovation.”
A Call for Regulation, Not an Outright Ban
Instead of an outright ban, PCH is urging lawmakers to pursue a more collaborative and “thoughtful regulatory framework.” The company is not opposed to oversight but believes a blanket prohibition is a reckless approach.
“We support reasonable regulation and urge a collaborative approach to develop a framework that protects consumers, preserves entertainment choices, and unlocks significant economic opportunities for California,” the letter states.
PCH’s call for a different path is backed by a groundswell of public opposition. The company noted that in just two weeks, over 20,000 Californians have contacted their legislators to oppose the bill.
PCH is asking lawmakers to pause the “rushed legislation,” extend it to a two-year timeline to allow for proper stakeholder engagement, and work with the industry to create a sensible regulatory structure that enhances consumer protection without destroying a legitimate business model.
Recommended