California
Statute in force
Template B: Indirect consideration.
- Payment processors and financial institutions are described as reached, per a summary of the statute.
- Template B: Indirect consideration
Records read Oct 16, 2026 · counsel review pending · read through summaries only
The statute
AB 831 (Ch. 623, Stats. 2025; Penal Code §337o; Bus. and Prof. Code §17539.1 amended)
- Template B · Indirect consideration
- Signed Oct 11, 2025
- In effect from Jan 1, 2026
- Penalty: Misdemeanor, up to 1 year in county jail and/or up to $25,000 per violation; civil exposure under the Business and Professions Code. Players are not liable.
- Indirect consideration is described as including coins, tokens or other representations of value exchangeable for prizes, cash or chances to win, even if received free through bonuses or promotions.
Carve-outs the sources describe
- Promotions by for-profit businesses run on a limited and occasional basis as marketing incidental to substantial bona fide sales of consumer products or services.
Not yet confirmed: Chaptered text not read (leginfo, LegiScan and Justia refused the fetch); definitions, scienter and the carve-out are quoted from two law-firm summaries.
Who it reaches
Operators, Financial institutions, Payment processors, Geolocation providers, Game suppliers, Platform providers, Affiliates and media
- Operators: described in a summary of the statute
- Financial institutions: described in a summary of the statute
- Payment processors: described in a summary of the statute
- Geolocation providers: described in a summary of the statute
- Game suppliers: described in a summary of the statute
- Platform providers: described in a summary of the statute
- Affiliates and media: described in a summary of the statute
The summaries describe liability for a party that knowingly and willfully supports the operation or promotion in California; one earlier bill version reportedly used "knowingly" only.
Bills, enforcement and litigation
2 notes
- All major operators exited California by 2025-12-31; Evolution, Pragmatic Play and Hacksaw withdrew from California sweepstakes before the effective date.
- No challenge to AB 831 was found; absence is not confirmation.
- Sweepstakes casinos: the full analysis for buildersHow the dual-currency model is built, what the free method of entry answers and what it does not, the seven theories states now use, where the cases stand, and the designs each state’s law leaves standing.Apparently Law · Sep 25, 2026 · current to Sep 28, 2026Sweepstakes casinosCaliforniaFloridaMaineNew York+1 more
- Sweepstakes casinos: what the statutes leave standingCalifornia’s and New York’s bans define the product in cumulative parts. What each part leaves open, what the operators have done with it, and why outside a statute is not the same as lawful.Apparently Law · Sep 23, 2026 · current to Sep 28, 2026Sweepstakes casinosCaliforniaFloridaNew YorkWashington
- Sweepstakes casinos: four states, four ways past the free method of entryNew York defined the product, California counted the free coin, Tennessee called it a lottery and Illinois called it internet gambling — read in the statutes’ own words, and against the operators’ own terms.Apparently Law · Sep 22, 2026 · current to Sep 28, 2026Sweepstakes casinosCaliforniaIllinoisNew YorkTennessee
- advertisinglaw.fkks.comTrade or law-firm press · Oct 30, 2025
- zwillgen.comTrade or law-firm press · Oct 14, 2025
- leginfo.legislature.ca.govPrimary source · read Oct 16, 2026
Information, not legal advice; a description of the sources on the dates shown, not a conclusion about any product. Sweepstakes casinos.