Sweepstakes casino ban clears California Senate, heads to Assembly

Summary

California’s Senate unanimously passed AB 831 (36-0), which bans sweepstakes casinos after the bill was amended in the Senate. The measure returns to the Assembly for concurrence. Amendments carve out state lottery games and traditional commercial sweepstakes (eg McDonald’s, Starbucks) to address opposition concerns. The bill follows similar sweepstakes casino bans in states such as Connecticut, Montana and New Jersey, and comes amid a wider regulatory crackdown and cease-and-desist activity targeting operators.

Major tribal groups including the California Nations Indian Gaming Association, the Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations and the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation back the bill, while four tribes and industry groups oppose it. Several suppliers and operators have already withdrawn from the Californian sweepstakes market (notably Playtech and Evolution), and enforcement actions and litigation are increasing — including a civil enforcement action in Los Angeles against Stake.us and a tribal lawsuit seeking a preliminary injunction against Kalshi and Robinhood.

Key Points

AB 831 passed the California Senate unanimously (36-0) and goes back to the Assembly for concurrence.
The bill was amended to exclude state lottery games and conventional promotional sweepstakes run by major brands.
Major tribal gaming bodies and many tribes support the ban, viewing it as protection of tribal gaming sovereignty.
Four tribes and industry groups (SPGA, Social Gaming Leadership Alliance) oppose the legislation and criticise the rushed “gut-and-amend” process.
Suppliers such as Playtech and Evolution have removed games from California sweepstakes sites; operators have pulled back amid regulatory scrutiny.
Separate legal and regulatory pressure is building on prediction markets and daily fantasy sports: tribes have sued Kalshi and Robinhood; California AG labelled DFS as betting earlier this year.
The move mirrors a broader national trend of state-level bans and regulator enforcement actions against sweepstakes-style gaming sites.

Why should I read this?

Short version: if you work in US iGaming, payments, or tribal gaming, this is big — California’s about to shut down a major grey market, suppliers are exiting, and legal fights are heating up. It’s not just another bill; it signals where regulators and tribes are lining up.

Context and relevance

AB 831 is part of a wider pattern of states moving against sweepstakes casinos and similar products. The unanimous Senate vote and tribal backing show strong political momentum in California, the largest US market by population. That momentum is already prompting commercial consequences: suppliers and operators are withdrawing, enforcement actions are increasing, and litigation over prediction markets and DFS is intensifying. For industry observers this affects compliance strategies, commercial partnerships and market access — and may influence actions in other states and at federal level.