At least one sweepstakes casino is encouraging its California players to chip into the fight against Assembly Bill 831, which would ban sweeps casino sites in the state.
Golden Hearts Games has sent an email to California customers, notifying them of the bill and giving them a template of a letter to write to their representatives, asking them to oppose AB831.
What does the letter say?
Here is that template:
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Assembly Bill No. 831, which seeks to outlaw sweepstakes games. As a California voter, I am deeply concerned about this bill and what it represents. I urge you to reconsider your support for this bill for the following reasons:
Government Overreach: I do not want the government telling me what I can and cannot do on my phone or computer. As an adult, I should have the freedom to engage with legal and responsible forms of entertainment without interference from lawmakers. This bill is an unnecessary and paternalistic intrusion into personal choice.
Social games are fun & engaging and I, like many others, enjoy playing these games. They are a source of entertainment, relaxation and excitement. Criminalizing these games only serves to take away an enjoyable activity from responsible adults.
Social game operators, including those offering sweepstakes promotions, contribute to the U.S. economy via job growth and business expansion. On a state level, lawful social game operators pay significant sales tax to the state of California. If this Bill passes, not only will the state of California lose such sales tax revenue, but it risks existing sweepstakes players instead playing on black market sites which may not have proper frameworks in place for age and identity verification, responsible gaming features, and other consumer protections currently in place today.
Misplaced Priorities: With all the serious challenges California is facing—rising crime, housing shortages, crumbling infrastructure, and economic struggles—it is outrageous that lawmakers are prioritizing a bill to ban these types of games. This is not what I want my representatives to focus on, and it is certainly not what the state needs right now.
Instead of restricting personal freedoms and targeting a harmless form of entertainment, I urge you to oppose this bill or work to rescind it. If Assembly Bill 831 comes up for a vote, I expect you to vote against it. I, and many other voters, will be paying close attention to your stance on this issue when election season comes around.
Chumba Casino and LuckyLand Slots have sent emails to their California customers, as well, informing them of AB831 and its impact.
There is also a change.org petition called “Oppose California Assembly Bill 831 (AB 831)” — although it had only 39 signatures at the time of the writing. It was initiated on July 1.
What the fate of AB831 will really come down to
Ultimately, emails from sweeps players won’t sway this bill’s fate. In all likelihood, the key determinant will be how successful bill advocates are in pushing this as a tribal issue rather than solely an online gaming issue.
Because if there’s one thing that bonds Democrats and Republicans in California, it’s protecting tribal rights and sovereignty.
The push behind AB831 appears to be led by the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, the owner of Yamaava’ Resort & Casino — the West Coast’s largest — and one of California’s most influential gaming tribes. Per sources with knowledge on the matter, internal California Nations Indian Gaming Association communication has indicated the YSMN is officially backing the bill.
This tribe has a history of effectively backing efforts aligned with its interests. It was the primary donor, for instance, for the No on Prop 27 campaign, which destroyed commercial operators’ efforts to legalize online sports betting in the 2022 election.
Notably, the YSMN runs its own social casino, Play.Yaamava, which could benefit if sweeps casinos are forced out of the state. While some have debated whether Play.Yaamava qualifies as a sweepstakes model — due to its prize structure tied to in-person casino rewards — its lack of a dual-currency setup, the model being targeted in sweeps ban bills, including AB831, likely would keep it safe.
“I think we can get it done this session, but it’s going to take a big effort from a lot of tribes,” CNIGA Chairman James Siva said during a webcast on Wednesday. ” … CNIGA views this as our top legislative priority.”
What’s next for AB831?
The bill’s journey is far from over. AB831 was not originally written as a sweeps ban bill. So, because of the amendments, it must now restart its legislative path.
Up next is a hearing in front of the Senate Governmental Organization Committee on July 8 at 9 a.m. Pacific Time.
The Social Gaming Leadership Alliance and Social and Promotional Games Association both released statements in opposition to AB831. SGLA Executive Director Jeff Duncan, a former South Carolina congressman, provided written testimony against New Jersey’s sweeps ban bill, so he’ll likely be involved in California too.
“This proposed law would push players toward unscrupulous black-market operators who have no interest in protecting Californians,” Duncan said in his statement, “leaving only those dangerous operators who do not protect minors or vulnerable constituents.
“We urge the California Senate Governmental Organization Committee not to pass a hasty prohibition and instead work with us to develop sensible regulatory frameworks that prioritize consumer protection while offering valuable economic opportunities.”
