California Governor Gavin Newsom faces a crucial choice on AB 831, a bill that would outlaw online sweepstakes casinos statewide. The measure cleared the Legislature and now sits on the governor’s desk.
Industry groups are lobbying for a veto, while tribal leaders and lawmakers largely back the ban. Newsom hasn’t stated a firm position, and observers say he could let it become law without his signature to avoid taking a side.
What AB 831 Would Do—and Who It Affects
AB 831 targets websites and apps that use a dual-currency setup to mimic real-money casino play. The bill would make it illegal to operate or support these platforms in California. That includes payment processors, content suppliers, and even media affiliates that promote the sites. Violations could bring fines and, in some cases, misdemeanor penalties.
Supporters argue the bill protects consumers from unregulated gambling. They say these sites look like real online casinos but operate outside the state’s rules and oversight.
Backers also claim the ban helps preserve agreements with tribal governments, which run legal casino gaming in California. Many tribes view sweepstakes casinos as competition that doesn’t follow the same standards or pay the same costs.
Opponents, led by the Social Gaming Leadership Alliance (SGLA) and major social-casino operator VGW, say a full ban goes too far. They argue sweepstakes games are free-to-play and use clear rules to stay within the law.
These groups want a path to regulation rather than criminalization, claiming a ban would hurt jobs, small creators, and innovation in gaming tech.
Politics Around a Possible Veto—or No Action
The politics are complicated. Some in the tribal gaming community believe Newsom may avoid an outright signature due to national ambitions. They suggest he could take “no action,” which would allow the bill to become law automatically. That would satisfy many lawmakers while giving the governor some distance from a controversial decision.
At the same time, the debate overlaps with a separate fight over daily fantasy sports (DFS). In July, the state Attorney General said DFS violates California law. Newsom’s office publicly disagreed with the outcome, signaling he’s open to a more nuanced approach on popular online games.
That backdrop matters because many young voters use social gaming and DFS—and could react strongly to broad crackdowns.
The market is already shifting. Several sweepstakes brands have begun exiting California or limiting access, anticipating the bill’s impact. Some developers have pulled their game catalogs from platforms serving the state.
Meanwhile, SGLA and allied groups are urging Newsom to veto the bill and work on a regulated model that includes tribal voices and safeguards.
What This Means for Players and Sites
If AB 831 becomes law, players should expect fewer sweepstakes options available in California. Sites may pull back to avoid legal risk, and payment and geolocation partners could also cut ties.
For content creators, influencers, and affiliates who promote sweepstakes casinos, the bill’s “knowingly support” language could limit advertising and partnerships tied to these games.
For operators, the safest short-term move will be to pause California access and review compliance. Longer term, companies may push for a framework that allows social-style play with clear guardrails. Tribes will likely seek a leading role in any future online model, keeping consumer protections and state revenues at the center.
Bottom Line
Newsom’s next move will set the tone for California’s online gaming future. A signature—or a passive “no action”—would likely end sweepstakes casinos in the state for now. A veto would keep them alive while forcing a broader debate on how to regulate social gaming.
Either way, players and platforms should prepare for rapid changes in the weeks ahead.
