A California bill to ban online sweepstakes gaming, Assembly Bill 831 (AB831), had wording deleted from provisions that would have criminalized users. The new provision eliminates the use of the term "person" from the list of those considered out of compliance under the bill, thereby safeguarding users against arrest for engaging in sweepstakes-based games.
Key Takeaways
- California's anti-sweepstakes gambling bill has removed language that could have criminalized players in sweepstakes-style online gambling games.
- The revised bill targets only those who knowingly support or operate illegal sweepstakes platforms.
- Civil rights and industry groups say the bill still overreaches and punishes legitimate businesses.
The original draft of the legislation criminalized the activities of a broad range of actors who directly or indirectly contributed to the ongoing operation or promotion of online sweepstakes games. The amended language in the bill now criminalizes only entities that "knowingly" assist such operations.
This revision follows bipartisan concerns raised during the bill's previous hearing. In the Governmental Organization Committee, Sen. Angelique Ashby expressed unease about players facing misdemeanor charges, calling that possibility "deeply troubling." The Public Safety Committee also raised similar objections.
San Bernardino County District Attorney Jason Anderson emphasized that the bill aims to target offshore operators, not consumers. He clarified that enforcement would be directed at companies running or supporting illegal dual-currency gambling models in California.
Though players have been excluded, the bill maintains its punitive approach toward suppliers and service providers who knowingly aid online sweepstakes platforms.
Industry and civil rights groups push back against sweepstakes ban
Several advocacy and industry organizations have complained about the amended language of AB831, saying that it is still too broad in scope. The Social Gaming Leadership Alliance (SGLA), which former Congressman Jeff Duncan chairs, has urged a more cautious legislative strategy.
SGLA would like to reschedule the bill as a two-year bill to provide more time for stakeholder comments.
The California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) shared similar concerns, noting that the bill increases penalties under Penal Code Section 330. The potential jail time could double, while fines could increase by as much as 2,500%, a change the ACLU contends will worsen rather than improve the situation.
The Association of National Advertisers (ANA), whose members include major corporations such as Google and NBCUniversal, has also voiced strong opposition due to the potential impact on legitimate advertising and the tech sector.
California AG declares daily fantasy illegal in California
While lawmakers debate sweepstakes casinos, another form of gambling has been banned. California Attorney General Rob Bonta recently issued a legal opinion stating that daily fantasy sports contests constitute a form of sports betting and are, therefore, illegal under current state law. This includes popular draft and pick 'em games, which Bonta said amount to wagering on sporting events.
That opinion puts long-running fantasy platforms in a tough spot. Most of these companies have been operating in the state for over a decade, under the assumption that the games are skill-based and lawful.
Although Bonta’s opinion doesn’t carry the force of law, it casts uncertainty over whether fantasy platforms can continue operating without legislative clarity. Gov. Newsom pushed back on the assessment, and fantasy companies remain firm in stating that their offerings hinge on player skill and should not be lumped in with sports betting.
