An animated debate between a sweepstakes casino site stakeholder and a lawmaker who seeks to ban them underscored the stark divisions between a growing, multibillion-dollar industry that faces an uncertain future in statehouses nationwide.
Key takeaways
- A heated discussion at the SBC Americas conference revealed sharp disagreements between sweepstakes casino operators and lawmakers.
- Social casinos, which use a "sweeps coin" model to offer prizes, face growing scrutiny.
Speaking at SBC Americas conference panel in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Wednesday, supporters and opponents of these game offerings laid out vastly different interpretations of the customer base, legality and path forward for social casinos.
In defending his product, Rubystone CEO Jamison Selby said these games didn't violate state law and appealed to a different audience than real-money iCasinos. West Virginia House Rep. Shawn Fluharty, who led his state’s efforts to legalize iCasinos and works for a regulated casino gaming company, said these games cater to the same customers as real-money players and shouldn't be allowed to continue operations.
In a spirited back-and-forth, the two industry figures' disparate positions laid bare the divisions on what both sides agree is becoming a larger part of the United States' gaming environment.
Sweeps casino background
Spurred by extensive, celebrity-led marketing campaigns, sweeps casinos expanded in recent years, growing to an industry whose revenue rivals that of the licensed real money casino industry.
Instead of letting customers play slots or table games for actual cash, social casinos offer free-to-play versions using free digital coins. Players can also purchase “sweeps coins” that allow them to win prizes.
These site operators claim the distinction lets them to operate within the law. Critics argue these games are, practically, unregulated casinos and shouldn't be permitted to continue operations.
Roughly a dozen states, including legal iGaming states Michigan and Connecticut, sent leading social casino sites cease-and-desist letters demanding they leave the state. More than 10 states introduced bills this year explicitly banning these games.
Celebrity endorsers including Ryan Seacrest also received lawsuits arguing they're promoting illegal gambling.
Sweeps casino supporters on Wednesday’s panel argued sweeps casino players enjoyed the game play itself and weren't drawn to potential monetary or other gains. Selby said his sweeps site is competing for clicks with YouTube and Tik Tok, not regulated or uregulated real-money casinos, and that a sizeable majority of customers never spent any money on the platform.
"The majority of our players surveys, they're playing for fun, for the thrill of it,” Selby said. “These are not people who would play at a black market who know what a black market site is. These are people who play (games like) Candy Crush, for the most part. They play games that they download from the app stores.”
Social casino supporters said during Wednesday’s panel these games were more akin to the Monopoly promotion McDonald’s restaurants offered; free to play, complimentary bonuses to an existing product.
Fluharty rejected that notion, comparing sweeps casinos to the McDonald’s cartoon thief mascot the Hamburglar.
“I just think that's absurd on its face comparing (social casinos) to McDonald's and hamburgers and you're digging into that deep water, chances are your argument is pretty flawed,” Fluharty said. “They're stealing profit from states with an illegal market. That's what they're doing. They're the Hamburglar.”
Sweeps casinos future
These contrasting positions underscore the difficulty regulators and lawmakers face banning social casinos or legalizing them outright, likely keeping these games in an existing limbo for the foreseeable future.
Some gaming stakeholders argue for a separate license for sweeps casinos independent of the more rigorous requirements for real-money gaming. Others have postulated legalizing the sweeps casino platforms, of which hundreds already operate nationwide, can become stepping stones to regulated real money markets in new states.
The two largest real-money iCasino operators, FanDuel and DraftKings, operated daily fantasy sites for years before they were explicitly legalized in roughly two-dozen states. The two companies also still run DFS platforms in sites where they aren't explicitly legal or illegal, which Selby noted when defending the continued right for sweeps casinos to operate in the absence of state-level regulation.
Fluharty responded by saying many sweeps casinos have obeyed the cease-and-desist letters instead of fighting in court like DFS platforms a decade ago and prediction markets are doing now. He claimed that gaming operators that believe they're within the law would challenge these through legal means.
Proponents of banning sweeps platforms and legalizing iCasinos point out licensed providers spent millions of dollars and countless hours meeting regulatory and customer protection requirements. Any other company seeking to offer these games must meet these same requirements, proponents argue.
Complicating matters is the massive revenue potential from legal iGaming.
Real money online casino gaming has only been legalized in seven states, only four of which allow more than two operators. In the last seven years, 31 states legalized statewide mobile sports betting.
Though available in far fewer states, real money online table games and slots generated nearly $8 billion in revenue in 2024 compared to around $13 billion from online sportsbooks.
Despite the potential tax income from these more lucrative games, legal iCasinos have proven far less politically palatable than sportsbooks. Opponents argue real money slots and table games have a far greater potential for addiction or other societal ills. The regulated gaming industry itself is divided over whether legalizing online games hurt brick-and-mortar casino profits and the associated in-person jobs.
Both sides agree there remains a demand for gaming online. But the struggles in 2025 for both legislation to ban social casinos and to legalize real-money platforms prolong an undefined legal limbo.
The unprecedented action on both fronts in statehouses this year likely indicates renewed interest in 2026 as lawmakers and the general public become more conscious of these gaming offerings. Some stakeholders believe this sets up a potential 50-state patchwork of legal iGaming states, illegal social casino states and a group of jurisdictions that haven’t ruled on either.
“I think we will see some states ban social casinos,” Selby said. I think we will see some states introduce some type of a registration scheme, which is a de facto ban.”
He added, “ I think we will see some states come up with some type of either taxation registration or a little regulatory regime for it, and I think we'll see a group of states do absolutely nothing.”
