Second California Tribe Joins Opposition to Anti-Sweepstakes Bill
A second California tribal nation, the Big Lagoon Rancheria, has officially requested that state lawmakers halt a fast-moving bill that would ban online sweepstakes casinos. In a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the tribe argued that the proposed legislation, AB 831, threatens tribal sovereignty and was advanced without meaningful consultation with many of the state’s tribes.
A Call for Consultation, Not Outright Opposition
The letter, signed by Tribal Chairman Virgil Moorehead, asks the committee to “hold AB 831 to allow for meaningful tribal consultation and consideration of the bill’s impacts.” The tribe frames its request not as a categorical objection to the bill’s intent, but as a plea for a more inclusive and deliberate legislative process.
Moorehead criticized the way the bill was handled, pointing to a “gut-and-amend” process where a technical bill related to tribal compacts was suddenly transformed into a broad prohibition on sweepstakes gaming. He argued this significant change occurred “without the meaningful consultation that is owed on matters affecting tribal interests.”
Fears of Economic Harm and Lost Opportunity
A central concern for the Big Lagoon Rancheria and other opposing tribes is the potential for economic harm. They argue that the bill would disproportionately affect smaller, more rural, and non-gaming tribes that may see digital platforms as a viable path to economic development.
The letter states that AB 831 would “eliminate business opportunities for various tribes by foreclosing their access to emerging digital business sectors without offering any offsetting benefits.” For geographically isolated tribes, these digital partnerships can be one of the few realistic avenues to fund essential services like housing, healthcare, and food security.
The Kletsel Economic Development Authority, which has partnered with the social gaming company VGW, has previously voiced similar concerns, arguing that the bill poses a particular threat to tribes that rely on digital revenue streams.
Broad Language and Unintended Consequences
Opponents have also raised alarms about the broad language used in the bill. The legislation seeks to criminalize anyone who “directly or indirectly” facilitates, promotes, or otherwise supports the targeted platforms.
Moorehead noted that this could sweep in a wide range of ancillary businesses, including payment processors, geolocation services, advertising firms, software developers, and even customer service centers, creating significant legal uncertainty for a broad swath of the tech and service industries.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also expressed opposition, raising concerns that the ban is so vaguely worded that it could inadvertently outlaw many other common forms of consumer contests and games.
A Growing Chorus of Opposition
The Big Lagoon Rancheria joins a diverse group of opponents, including the Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation, the Social and Promotional Game Association (SPGA), and the Social Gaming Leadership Alliance.
The SPGA echoed the tribe’s concerns, calling AB 831 “rushed and flawed legislation.” The group stated that it is “irresponsible for California lawmakers to be ramming this flawed bill through despite the growing chorus of complaints from tribes, consumers, and California businesses.”
As the bill awaits its next hearing, the call for a pause and further dialogue is growing louder, with opponents urging lawmakers to explore alternatives that could protect consumers without undermining tribal sovereignty or stifling economic opportunity.
Recommended