The California legislative push to ban sweepstakes casino operators took another step Tuesday.
Lawmakers held a second hearing in the California Senate Public Safety Committee Tuesday afternoon, and unanimously advanced AB 831, a bill that would ban sweepstakes casino operators from the Golden State. It now moves on to the Appropriations Committee.
The bill took its first step last week in the Governmental Organization Committee. As legislators took that second step, sweepstakes industry organizations increased their efforts to counter the legislative process.
Sweepstakes casino prohibition effort
The bill’s sponsor, Assemblymember Avelino Valencia, said the bill helps close a loophole companies are using to offer Californians gambling.
It makes games that allow sweepstakes coin purchases to win a prize, award or money illegal, including those that simulate casino-style gambling. Supporters said it only targets and only dual-currency offerings and does not impact sweepstakes from major companies like Starbucks.
The California Nations Indian Gaming Association supports the bill.
Legislative process for sweeps prohibition
Unrelated tribal gambling language initially made up AB 831 and passed the Assembly in early May.
Lawmakers inserted the sweepstakes prohibition language last month. It passed its first committee last week, but lawmakers did express concerns about the way the legislation emerged and potential unintended consequences.
The California legislative session runs until Sept. 12. Bills can carry over into the 2026 session.
Sweepstakes groups speak out
Both the Social Gaming Leadership Alliance and the Social and Promotional Games Association released statements opposing AB 831 over the last week. The associations are critical of the “gut and amend” process to insert the language into an unrelated bill.
The SGLA noted that more than 20,000 letters, calls, and texts from residents were sent to lawmakers to urge opposition to the legislation.
They also note “broad language” that could “criminalize routine services provided by technology companies, financial institutions and media platforms.” The SGLA also notes “several red flags”:
- Impractical monitoring requirements
- Unfair criminal liability
- Lack of clear standards
Coalition raises concerns
The SPGA sent a letter to Valencia detailing their concerns.
The SPGA also issued an alert Monday highlighting a coalition of companies and organizations opposing the prohibition bill. The groups are warning about the bill’s “unintended consequences”:
- SPGA
- SGLA
- ACLU California Action
- American Transaction Processors Coalition
- Association of National Advertisers
- Californians United for a Responsible Budget
- Virtual Gaming World
“The SPGA is proud to stand alongside the ACLU, the Association of National Advertisers, and other partners in voicing concerns about AB 831,” an SPGA spokesperson said in the release. “This diverse coalition, including civil liberties advocates, leading businesses, and industry groups, reflects a shared belief that the bill, as written, could have unintended consequences for lawful promotional practices without offering clear consumer protections.”
