Opposition Erupts Over Controversial Sweepstakes Casino Bill

Those against the bill—like some industry groups and civil liberties organizations—argue that the language is too broad, lacks thorough review, and could inadvertently ban legitimate online promotions.

Why Do Some Oppose The Bill?

Although its current status remains unclear, there are plenty of key supporters, a list of growing opponents, and potential implications for the gaming industry and digital promotions. And one of the primary issues with AB 831, as outlined by SPGA, is its reliance on ambiguous language.

1. Ambiguous Definitions Pose Risks: According to the SPGA, the bill aims to criminalize the operation of “sweepstakes games” without providing clear definitions. Terms such as “dual currency system” and “cash equivalents” remain undefined, raising concerns about potential legal risks for businesses and individuals involved in digital promotions. These vague definitions could classify numerous legal marketing campaigns and promotions as illegal, threatening longstanding business practices.
2. Impact on Digital Commerce and Tribal Communities: KEDA emphasizes that the bill overlooks the economic realities faced by geographically isolated tribes. For tribes distant from major tourism hubs, digital platforms offer essential revenue streams that fund crucial services like healthcare, education, and housing. AB 831, they argue, disproportionately benefits larger tribes with established gaming operations, while restricting smaller tribes’ ability to leverage digital commerce for economic growth. Eliminating these opportunities could exacerbate existing disparities and undermine efforts toward economic justice for all tribal nations.
3. Concerns of Overreaching Regulation: The bill also stands accused of overreach, as it not only seeks to regulate specific games but effectively redefines gambling in California. SPGA notes that this shift marks a significant expansion of state gambling law without the necessary public debate or legislative scrutiny. Moreover, AB 831 threatens legitimate digital entertainment, which is widely used, legal, and safeguarded with age gates and fraud protection measures.
4. Lack of Demonstrated Harm: Critics of AB 831 argue that the bill lacks evidence to support claims of consumer harm. No data or public records point to the games in question causing widespread issues, making the proposed legal constraints seem disproportionate to the alleged risks.
5. Uneven Application and Potential Consequences: The uneven application of rules is another concern raised by the opponents of the bill. Prominent supporters of AB 831 have themselves engaged in promoting social casino games, often without adhering to the security measures they advocate for others. Furthermore, if applications such as customer rewards programs from well-known companies like Starbucks and Microsoft fall under the vague definitions of the bill, it could inadvertently classify them as criminal activities.

Lawmakers Urged to Consult with Stakeholders

Opponents argue that AB 831 could make California “smaller” by diminishing innovation and economic opportunities.

They urge lawmakers to conduct more extensive consultations with stakeholders, assess the bill’s broader implications, and consider a regulatory framework that facilitates growth while generating state revenue.

Both SPGA and KEDA advocate for rejecting this rushed legislation in favor of a thoughtful, inclusive approach that benefits California’s digital economy and supports vulnerable communities.