California’s sweepstakes ban bill amended again in Senate
California lawmakers have once again amended Assembly Bill 831, the bill aimed at banning online sweepstakes gambling, as it continues its path through the state Senate. This marks the second set of changes since the measure was overhauled earlier this year to become a full sweeps ban.
The measure, which passed the Assembly earlier this year in a dramatically altered form, had been awaiting a Senate floor vote after clearing its final committee on August 29. However, on September 3, it was amended during its third reading and returned to second reading for further consideration.
Marketing promotions explicitly protected
The newest changes clarify that consumer promotions like those offered by Starbucks or McDonald’s will not be outlawed. According to the bill’s updated language: “These provisions do not make unlawful game promotions or sweepstakes conducted by for-profit commercial entities on a limited and occasional basis as an advertising and marketing tool that are incidental to bona fide sales of consumer products or services.”
Lawmakers also revised the bill to specify that it will not impact the California State Lottery or games conducted by licensed operators under the Gambling Control Act. Changes have also been made in the terminology to replace “gambling-themed games” with simply “gambling.”
The changes were made after The Social & Promotional Games Association warned on social media that even charitable promotions such as the Make-A-Wish Foundation’s Chase Rewards giveaway could be threatened by AB 831.
Intent and knowledge are key legal factors
Another significant amendment introduces a new Section 1, making clear that the law only applies to those who “knowingly and intentionally” promote or facilitate dual-currency sweepstakes. This distinction aims to shield ancillary service providers, such as payment processors, banks, or geolocation companies, that may be inadvertently connected to online sweeps.
The bill further clarifies that suppliers, platforms, or affiliates would only face penalties if they support sweepstakes gambling “knowingly and willfully.” This builds on prior Senate amendments in July that ensured individual players would not be criminalised.
Growing opposition from cities and tribes
While the bill is strongly supported by powerful tribes including the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation and the California Nations Indian Gaming Association (CNIGA), opposition has emerged. The Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation of the Cortina Rancheria, VGW’s new tribal partner, has joined two other smaller tribes in speaking against AB 831. Longtime contest operator Publishers Clearing House (PCH) has also opposed the measure, as have multiple California cardroom cities and the California Cities Gaming Authority, which represents cardrooms statewide.
The Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo Indians has raised concerns about A.B. 831, stating that the proposed ban may negatively affect smaller tribes exploring digital gaming options. Critics of the bill argue that a full prohibition on sweepstakes could increase economic inequality and restrict tribal autonomy in online gaming. A cardroom representative previously testified that operators expected to be accommodated in the legislation but have instead been left vulnerable under the proposed sweeps ban.
US states move against sweepstakes
In the United States, sweepstakes casinos have grown rapidly. By offering cash-redeemable prizes, they operate in a legally ambiguous area. These platforms function similarly to unauthorised online gambling sites but often present themselves as promotional contests. Several US states have taken decisive action against sweepstakes casinos, either by passing formal bans or launching aggressive enforcement campaigns.
As of September 2025, New York, Connecticut, Montana, Nevada, and New Jersey have all passed legislation explicitly outlawing these platforms. Others US states, including Washington, Michigan, and Idaho, have long-standing restrictions in place. Meanwhile, states such as Delaware, Louisiana, West Virginia, and Maryland have forced dozens of operators to exit through cease-and-desist orders and subpoenas. Along with California, Massachusetts is also actively considering similar ban and has introduced House Bill 4431.
