Indiana’s first gaming hearing of 2026 centred on HB 1052, which proposes banning dual-currency sweepstakes casinos. These platforms have expanded quickly by operating outside traditional gambling laws, raising questions about consumer protection, tax revenue, innovation, and government authority. Lawmakers must decide whether to ban or regulate them before the 2025 session ends in mid-March, as other states have already acted, adding pressure for Indiana to reach a clear outcome.
Overview of HB 1052
HB 1052 was introduced as a broad bill, but its proposal to ban dual-currency sweepstakes gaming platforms became the focus. The original draft called for a complete prohibition, with no licensing or regulation. Controversy arose when regulators acknowledged that these platforms are not currently violating Indiana law, shifting the discussion from enforcement to a broader policy debate.
Push for an outright ban
The Indiana Gaming Commission supports a ban on sweepstakes casinos despite acknowledging they are not currently illegal under state law. The Commission interprets existing gambling statutes as not covering these platforms, with General Counsel Natalie Huffman noting that the multi-currency model places them outside current regulations.
Huffman explained that Indiana law does not explicitly cover digital sweepstakes casinos, leaving no clear violation to enforce. The multi-currency model serves as their legal protection, and without it, these platforms would fall under traditional gambling definitions.
Huffman said, “It’s nuanced, but we don’t think so, which is why we need this legislation. Other states think their gambling laws are written in a way that can be used against these online casinos. But I don’t think that the way our gambling laws are written, we can move forward with sending a cease-and-desist letter in good faith, based on current law. The multi-currency model is what allows it to operate outside of our current regulatory scheme.”
Rep. Jim Lucas and case for regulation
Rep. Jim Lucas opposed an outright ban, arguing that businesses operating within the law should not be penalised simply because legislation has not kept pace. He emphasised that regulation should come before prohibition, urging lawmakers to address the issue through oversight rather than elimination.
Lucas argued, “I don’t think it’s right that an industry found a way to work within the boundaries of the law, and just because we don’t have our ducks in a row to legislate these industries and regulate them, we should punish them by outright banning them. It’s incumbent upon us to find a way to make this work, because I don’t think we should be in the business of picking winners and losers.”
Rep. Steve Bartels’ regulatory amendment
Rep. Steve Bartels supported a regulation-first approach, proposing that sweepstakes operators be licensed and brought under a formal framework. He argued that if these platforms comply with existing sweepstakes laws, they should be regulated rather than banned outright. One of the eight proposed amendments to the broad HB 1052 centred on the regulation of sweepstakes.
Bartels suggested, “I think we’re saying that as long as you follow the law of our sweepstakes statutes, you comply. Are we going to ban them without trying to regulate them first? The first time we’re here, we’re going to ban this? They’re not violating any laws, but maybe we need to regulate them.”
Chair Ethan Manning’s opposition
House Public Policy Committee Chair Ethan Manning opposed regulation, noting that Indiana has not yet legalised iGaming for its existing casinos. He argued that regulating sweepstakes would be premature and that a ban would maintain consistency in state policy. Manning also pointed out that Indiana has not taken enforcement action against sweepstakes casinos because the current law does not clearly apply to them. While six states have already enacted bans and others rely on existing statutes, Indiana lacks the authority to issue enforceable cease-and-desist orders, leaving such actions open to legal challenges.
Manning noted, “They’re not breaking any current laws. But if we don’t pass the prohibition, then we’re effectively saying we’re okay with the sweepstakes casinos continuing to operate as they are today, even though this legislature has been unable to pass iGaming and make that policy statement.”
Rep. Kyle Miller and iGaming solution
Rep. Kyle Miller proposed legalising iGaming as an alternative approach, arguing that regulated online casinos could provide the framework missing in sweepstakes. He suggested that if consumers have access to legal, structured platforms, sweepstakes casinos may lose relevance over time.
Miller advised, “If we’re looking for a legal framework for these companies, iGaming is it. Clearly, [sweeps] have cleverly found a way that doesn’t quite fit the definition of iGaming. And my contention is they’re able to do this because we’ve not passed a legal framework for iGaming.”
Indiana’s sweepstakes debate
Bans rarely eliminate demand, and regulation often proves more effective than prohibition. In Indiana, the sweepstakes gaming debate carries both legal and economic weight, with regulation offering potential tax revenue and player protections while balancing innovation and oversight.
Lawmakers remain divided, and the absence of a vote highlights ongoing uncertainty. With the 2025 legislative session ending in mid-March, the state must decide whether to ban, regulate, legalise iGaming, or delay action, choices that will shape gaming policy for years.
Stay ahead of iGaming’s biggest stories with SiGMA’s Top 10 News countdown. The world’s biggest iGaming community brings you weekly insights and subscriber-only offers. Join HERE today.
