A bill that would impose civil penalties on sweepstakes casinos operating in Indiana was approved by the Indiana House on Monday.
House Bill 1052 cleared its originating chamber to start the week by an 87-11 vote with two no votes. It will now head over to the Senate, where it will await its committee assignment.
Originally, HB1052 banned sweepstakes casinos and imposed criminal penalties on any operators who violated the law. However, during its committee process with the House Public Policy Committee, lawmakers amended the bill to downgrade the offense to civil, not criminal. An amendment was also approved to add “multi-currency” to the language of the bill, so it now formally targets sweeps games that use either a “dual-currency” or “multi-currency” gaming ecosystem.
This means that, of all the sweeps ban bills introduced so far in 2026, Indiana’s HB1052 has progressed the furthest.
Bills in Mississippi and Virginia have cleared their first committee stages, and bills in Maine, Maryland, and Florida have had their first hearings, but nothing beyond that.
Here’s exactly what HB1052 would ban in Indiana
In regards to the civil penalties: HB1052 enacts a $100,000 fine on any sweeps operator that conducts sweeps games in Indiana or involving any players located in Indiana.
Here is the official definition of the type of game that would be banned under HB1052:
As used in this section, “sweepstakes game” means a game, contest, or promotion that:
(1) is available on the Internet;
(2) is accessible on a mobile phone, computer terminal, or similar access device;
(3) utilizes a dual-currency or multi-currency system of payment allowing a player to exchange currency for:
(A) a cash prize, a cash award, or cash equivalents; or
(B) a chance to win a cash prize, a cash award, or cash equivalents; and
(4) simulates:
(A) lottery games; or
(B) casino-style gaming, including slot machines, video poker, table games, bingo, or sports wagering.
Indiana started out promising for sweeps stakeholders
Resistance to HB1052 — or at least the language banning sweeps casinos — did surface in the House Public Policy Committee.
Five of the committee’s 13 members voiced concerns about an outright ban.
One lawmaker — Rep. Steve Bartels — proposed an amendment that would regulate sweepstakes casinos instead of eliminating them.
“We keep saying there’s no violation of our current law and it’s odd 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?” Bartels said during a Jan. 6 hearing. “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.”
Another lawmaker, Rep. Jim Lucas, spoke forcefully against a ban, as well.
“(Sweeps casinos have) been doing business for well over a decade,” he said. “They provide a service that hundreds of thousands of Hoosiers are enjoying, and they are operating within the law. 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.”
Ultimately, those objections and others shared by committee members weren’t enough to stop the bill. The lone concession for the sweeps industry? A civil penalty instead of a criminal charge.
Another amendment attempt on the House floor
Although Bartels’ amendment wasn’t approved in committee, the amendment was presented again on the House floor before HB1052’s second reading. It would have created a regulatory framework for sweeps casinos under the governance of the Attorney General’s office, with $100,000 fees granting operators licenses for five-year terms.
In the end, the amendment was again turned down — albeit by a vote that indicated a significant contingent of lawmakers were opposed to a ban. (Or, at least, opposed to implementing a ban in HB1052, which is considered an administrative bill in which a pair of lawmakers on the House Public Policy Committee thought a policy change such as a sweeps ban wasn’t appropriate.)
The amendment lost in a 54-34 vote with seven no votes and five abstentions.
