California pushes new regulations on card rooms offering banked games
Summary
The California Department of Justice is moving forward with proposed regulations that would bar card rooms from offering modified versions of house-banked games such as blackjack and baccarat, closing a long-standing loophole that allowed ‘player-banker’ systems operated via Third-Party Providers of Proposition Player Services (TPPPPS).
A state-commissioned Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment (SRIA) by Berkeley Economic Advising and Research forecasts large economic shifts if the rules are enacted: potential statewide losses of $464 million for card rooms, $232 million in revenue gains for tribal casinos, and a projected loss of 364 full-time jobs annually over the next 10 years. The proposal follows a Sacramento Superior Court dismissal of a lawsuit filed by tribal casinos under Senate Bill 549; tribes are expected to appeal.
Key Points
- The DOJ proposes to prohibit card rooms from running modified banked games that use ‘player-bankers’ supplied by third parties, arguing these operate like traditional house-banked games.
- State SRIA estimates card rooms could lose $464 million in revenue while tribal casinos could gain $232 million if the regulations are implemented.
- The report forecasts a loss of 364 full-time card-room jobs per year across the next decade, raising concerns among local businesses and municipalities reliant on gaming tax revenue.
- Local operators such as Club One Casino (employing ~250 staff and contributing about $1m/year to Fresno’s general fund) warn that removing table games could be devastating—table games make up roughly 50% of some card-room revenues.
- Card-room workers and supporters protested outside Attorney General Rob Bonta’s Fresno office, highlighting potential community and charity impacts if games are removed.
- The proposed regulation emerges after a court dismissed a tribal lawsuit under SB 549; regulation is now the next avenue under pressure from tribal operators.
Why should I read this?
Because if you care about California gaming, local jobs or council budgets, this one actually matters. It could wipe out huge chunks of card-room revenue, shift millions to tribal casinos and hit municipal coffers and community services hard. Also: protests are already happening — it’s not just legal paperwork.
Author note
Punchy take: this isn’t a dry regulatory tweak — it’s a potential market reshuffle. The numbers in the SRIA are big enough to change local economies and reopen long-running fights between tribal operators and card-room owners. Read the detail if you want to understand who stands to win or lose.
Context and Relevance
The move sits at the intersection of state regulatory power, tribal gaming rights and local economic dependence on card rooms. It follows SB 549’s new enforcement route for tribes and a court decision that shifted the battleground from litigation to regulation. If adopted, the rules could accelerate consolidation of gaming revenue toward tribal casinos and force municipalities to rethink budgets that rely on card-room taxes. This matters for stakeholders across gaming, municipal finance and workforce planning.