When it comes to the landscape of states considering bills banning sweepstakes casinos in the 2026 session, Indiana has emerged as a potential market where the sweeps gaming industry has a chance for a rare legislative victory.
That’s because a number of lawmakers on the House Public Policy Committee expressed reservations — some strongly held, some more flexible — about the portion of House Bill 1052 that would outlaw online sweepstakes gaming during the bill’s initial hearing last week.
The tenor of that hearing gave the impression that it’s by no means a slam dunk the committee will advance HB1052 as is, which is a drastic difference compared to the hearings for sweeps ban bills in other states such as California, New York, and New Jersey, where the hearings, for lack of a better word, felt like mere formalities at best, where decisions regarding the bills had already been made behind closed doors.
Various lawmakers on the Indiana House Public Policy Committee, though, had concerns over banning sweeps sites versus regulating them, or even including any policies at all regarding sweepstakes casinos in this bill.
Rep. Bartels: Regulating sweeps casinos ‘is a good public policy’ and avoids ‘knee-jerk reaction’
Rep. Steve Bartels kicked off the regulation-over-ban discussion by introducing his proposed amendment, Amendment 6.
That amendment creates a regulatory framework for sweeps casinos instead of a ban. That framework includes elements such as a $100,000 license registration fee that’s effective for five years; required annual audits; and governance belonging to the Attorney General’s office.
“Ultimately what this does is say we’re not going to ban it. We’re going to start regulating it,” he told fellow committee members. “It still can stay in the sweepstakes statute. We can start making money off it. We can start protecting citizens. We can do the age verification. We can make sure they’re not advertising incorrectly or trying to target kids or people under 21.”
Bartels highlighted that his amendment includes required employee training, setting limits for players, participating in the state’s prohibited persons program, multiple layers of authorization including geo-location, and mandated policies for player protection, from both identity and financial perspectives.
An important element, as well: Sweeps prizes are regulated and must be paid out within a 48-hour period.
Bartels also noted that the general counsel for the Indiana Gaming Commission acknowledged that, under current Indiana law, sweeps casinos are not illegal.
“We keep saying there’s no violation of our current law and it’s odd,” he said, “that we have an agency wishing to pass iLotto owned by a private company outside the state of Indiana that now most of these sweepstakes are outside Indiana — but we’re going to ban them without trying to regulate them first?
“I think we’re doing a knee-jerk reaction based on potential competition with our own state agencies and I think we need to seriously step back and say, ‘Wait a minute. Is this what we’re going to do? This is the first time hearing about this and we’re going to ban this?’ They’re not violating any laws. But maybe we need to regulate them and at least give some time to — this body has already agreed we think we want iGaming, so would they fit in that model? And if we believe that, then we should regulate them now, give them time to fit into the iGaming model even if we limit the time they have to operate. I think it’s a good public policy.”
Rep. Ethan Manning, Chair of the House Public Policy Committee and author of HB1052, then asked Bartels if not banning sweeps would send a signal to sweeps operators that it is OK and fine for them to operate in the gray market in Indiana.
Bartels responded: “I understand the concept, and I think that’s why we should pass this amendment — because now it has regulations on it.”
Rep. Lucas: ‘I am 100% against just outright banning them’
Rep. Jim Lucas spoke in support of Bartels’ amendment — saying he is “100% against” an outright ban of Indiana sweeps casinos.
“They’ve been doing business for well over a decade. They provide a service that hundreds of thousands of Hoosiers are enjoying, and they are operating within the law,” Lucas said. “And it’s incumbent upon us to find a way to make this work because we obviously have other industries that we have molded ourselves around lawfully and I don’t think we should be in the business of picking winners and losers — as we are doing right now with iGaming. So until we can find a way to regulate this industry, I am 100% against just outright banning them.
“I’d like to think that we’re here to be fair and equitable, and not pick winners and losers.”
Manning replied to that: “I think the reality is we pick winners and losers here every day.”
Rep. Cory Criswell later chimed in, also in support of regulation.
“If we would pass this amendment,” he said, “then it would give them the regulatory framework to apply and become a regulatory framework and the state would make money and people could do it in a fair and honorable manner.”
Rep. Mayfield: ‘There needs to be more discussion on this particular sweepstakes topic’
A pair of committee members focused their comments more on worries that sweepstakes gaming policies should not be included in HB1052.
Rep. Peggy Mayfield lamented that the committee is considering a “substantive policy issue in an administrative bill” — referring to sweeps gaming — and that the type of policy change being discussed regarding a ban vs. regulation “deserves more discussion, and these amendments are all policy, not administrative, and that’s my objection to it.”
Mayfield then pointed to Indiana’s definition of gambling.
“You have to risk something of value, you have to receive something of value, and the determining factor has to be chance. If you remove any one of those requirements, it’s not gaming,” she said. “So I question whether the sweepstakes gaming — if one of these factors has been removed and therefore it’s … not technically gaming.
“I just think that there needs to be more discussion on this particular sweepstakes topic.”
Later, Rep. Matt Lehman said he worried discussion surrounding sweeps gaming would delay progress with HB1052, which is an administrative bill with various components that he doesn’t want bogged down or even delayed to next legislative session because they’re attached to a lengthy debate on what is and isn’t legal gaming in Indiana.
Rep. Manning: Regulating sweeps ‘would be out of order’
It should be noted the House Public Policy Committee has 13 members. A simple majority is required to advance a bill to the next step. So the real question is whether the opinions stated by the five lawmakers mentioned in this story are shared by any other committee members — or whether they can be persuaded.
Because seven “no” votes are required to not advance this bill, or, on the flip side, seven “yes” votes are required to pass Bartels’ Amendment 6.
As for Manning, the committee chair and HB1052’s author, regulation is not the answer.
“In light of the fact that this body has not regulated iGaming for our already regulated casinos,” Manning said, “I think this would be out of order to regulate this type of conduct when we’ve not legalized iGaming for our already regulated casinos.”
He also didn’t like how the AG’s office was tasked with regulating sweeps gaming in Bartels’ amendment. (Bartels did then say he’d be happy to tweak that language and have a different entity be responsible for regulation.)
“It has registration with the Attorney General. The gaming commission is not really involved and I don’t know why we would accept any level of regulation less than what iGaming would have been, which is obviously very strict, just like our brick-and-mortar casinos are,” Manning said. “So that’s my concern with regulation at this point personally.”
No vote has been taken as of yet on HB1052 or any of its amendments.
