Assembly Bill 831, legislation designed to prohibit sweepstakes casinos using dual-currency models, has cleared another significant step in California’s legislature. The Senate Committee on Public Safety gave the measure unanimous approval in a 6-0 vote, sending it forward to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Sponsored by Assemblymember Avelino Valencia, AB 831 specifically targets sweepstakes platforms that offer currencies like Gold Coins and Sweeps Coins—models used by major operators such as Chumba Casino and LuckyLand Slots. According to Valencia, these platforms “circumvent the will of the voters and sidestep the state’s gaming framework.”

Concerns from tribes and law enforcement over unregulated gambling:

During the hearing, Valencia affirmed that the bill had been amended to address potential overreach. Changes included provisions shielding individuals and third-party service providers—such as financial institutions, affiliates, and geolocation firms—from liability if they unknowingly support sweepstakes platforms. He emphasized that AB 831 is not meant to penalize users. “This is solely going to focus on the entities that are providing the sweepstakes types of platforms,” he told the committee.

Valencia and other supporters argue that unregulated sweepstakes casinos present risks to California’s tribal gaming system and public welfare. In testimony before the Senate, Johnny Hernandez, vice chairman of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, stated, “The dual-currency model creates a dangerous environment where Californians, especially young and vulnerable users, are exposed to real-money, gambling-like experiences with none of the consumer protections.”

He further clarified that while San Manuel offers its own social casino platform, it is free to play, lacks dual-currency mechanics, and does not provide cash prizes.

San Bernardino County District Attorney Jason Anderson also voiced support for the bill, citing youth vulnerability in the digital age. “Increased access to online gambling and virtual betting, coupled with the lack of strong age verification safeguards, puts our youth at serious risk of developing crippling gambling addiction,” Anderson testified.

Anderson addressed public concerns that the bill could criminalize players, stating, “We’re not seeking to penalize the player. Provisions in this bill are only intended to penalize the companies, often offshore, which are the source of this illegal gambling.”

Supporters highlighted that California voters had granted Native American tribes exclusive gaming rights more than 25 years ago. According to Valencia, tribal gaming has delivered over $25 billion to the state and created more than 112,000 jobs. Allowing unregulated sweepstakes platforms to flourish, he argued, undermines that voter mandate.

Industry opposition rallies broad coalition against bill:

Despite its momentum, AB 831 faces growing resistance. The Social and Promotional Games Association (SPGA), Social Gaming Leadership Alliance (SGLA), and other opponents argue the bill’s broad language could endanger lawful marketing promotions and sweepstakes unrelated to gambling.

Bill Gantz, an attorney representing the SGLA, challenged the premise that sweepstakes casinos are illegal. “It’s just like a lot of other sweepstakes,” he said. “People can make a purchase to enter, but they can also enter for free.” Gantz also questioned the lack of evidence presented to demonstrate harm, calling on lawmakers to study the sector rather than rush to outlaw it. He added that regulating sweepstakes could generate $149 million annually in sales tax revenue for California.

Opponents also criticized tribal groups for what they see as selective enforcement. “The testimony claiming our industry lacks age verification is not only false – it’s hypocritical,” the SGLA stated, referencing San Manuel’s own social casino, which they claim lacks age verification.

Backing from civil liberties and corporate entities has given the opposition further credibility. The SPGA has aligned itself with the American Civil Liberties Union of California and the Association of National Advertisers, which includes companies like Google and NBCUniversal. Together, these organizations argue that the bill could unintentionally disrupt legal promotional activity.

“The bill, as written, could have unintended consequences for lawful promotional practices without offering clear consumer protections,” an SPGA spokesperson said.

According to Sweepsy, in the weeks leading up to the Senate hearing, platforms such as Chumba Casino and Golden Hearts Games encouraged California players to contact lawmakers. One message from Chumba warned users that AB 831 “would take away your freedom to play the games you love.” By early July, nearly 20,000 such actions had been recorded.

Golden Hearts Games’ messaging went further, calling the bill “government overreach” and arguing it would push players toward unregulated, offshore platforms.

After clearing both the Senate Governmental Organization Committee and the Public Safety Committee, AB 831 will next be reviewed by the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 18. If it progresses from there, the bill will still need final approval from both legislative chambers and the signature of Governor Gavin Newsom to become law.

With legislative sessions running through September, but bills allowed to carry into 2026 if necessary, the debate over California’s approach to online sweepstakes casinos is far from over.