We’ve officially hit crunch time for one of the handful of remaining bills targeting sweepstakes casinos in the 2026 legislative session.
Minnesota Senate File 4474 has already passed through the Senate, but it has yet to receive its first committee hearing in the House. And with Minnesota’s 2026 legislative sessions set to conclude on May 18, time is of the essence for lawmakers if they want to formally ban Sweeps Coin gameplay at sweeps casinos this year.
Currently sitting with the House Public Safety, Finance, and Policy Committee, SF4474 cleared the Senate on April 30 but hasn’t seen any action since then — beyond its committee assignment on May 4.
Minnesota, Louisiana, and Washington, DC are the three remaining jurisdictions with active bills under consideration that would ban sweepstakes casinos.
Rapid movement before stalling in the House
Despite its current stall, SF4474 has previously moved rapidly through the legislature to reach this stage.
The bill, introduced in March 2026 by Sen. Jordan Rasmusson, seeks to ban dual-currency sweepstakes casinos across the state. Its effect extends beyond operators themselves, also applying to businesses tied to the industry, such as payment companies, gaming vendors, geolocation services, and affiliate marketers.
Because the bill arrived late in the legislative calendar, supporters needed to fast-track it through the Senate process. The first major step came in late March, when the Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee approved the bill following testimony from both tribal gaming representatives and sweeps industry advocates.
Supporters argued that sweepstakes casinos effectively operate as unlicensed online gambling platforms outside Minnesota’s regulatory framework. Opponents, however, warned lawmakers that the language could have unintended consequences for legitimate promotional sweepstakes and loyalty-style reward systems commonly used by major consumer brands — a common argument employed by the sweeps industry in these types of hearings.
During committee debate, Rasmusson responded to those concerns by saying discussions had already taken place with companies such as McDonald’s and stakeholders from the video game sector. According to the senator, those groups did not view the legislation as a threat because its focus was specifically on casino-style sweepstakes operators.
Momentum for the bill continued throughout April. SF4474 received unanimous approval from both the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee and the State and Local Government Committee. Although there was some uncertainty over whether procedural deadlines might derail the bill before the end of session, lawmakers ultimately voted to waive the committee cutoff, keeping the legislation alive.
With Senate approval now secured, SF4474 still needs to advance through House committees and win a floor vote before Minnesota’s legislative session adjourns on May 18. The timeline is narrow, but bills viewed as priorities can still move quickly in the final days of session.
How many House committees will SF4474 need to pass?
Notably, SF4474 needed to clear not one, not two, not three … but four committees in the Senate before it passed the full chamber. There is no way the bill would pass the House by May 18 if it needs to clear four committees in that chamber, too.
In the Minnesota House, there is no set number of committees a bill must pass through before reaching the floor for a full vote. It depends on the subject matter of the legislation and, really, the whim of House leadership.
Narrowly focused bills may only be assigned to a single committee, while broader bills that touch multiple policy areas often move through two or three committees. More complex or controversial bills can sometimes be referred to even more committees, which is what happened to SF4474 in the Senate, even though it cleared all those committees with relative ease once the hearings were actually conducted.
For SF4474, which involves gambling regulation, consumer protection, potential criminal enforcement issues, and business impacts, multiple committee referrals wouldn’t be out of the question. Bills tied to gaming policy frequently overlap with several areas of state government.
But, again, then there’s the whim component to remember.
Minnesota lawmakers have procedural flexibility during the legislative process. Leadership can waive deadlines or fast-track legislation considered a priority late in session.
A special session could extend beyond May 18
While the regular session in Minnesota is scheduled to end on May 18, lawmakers technically can continue working later through a special session.
A special session can only be called by the governor, typically after negotiations with legislative leaders. These sessions are often used when lawmakers fail to finish major priorities before the constitutional deadline, like the state budget.
But it’s important to note that, usually, only the bills specifically included in the special session’s agenda are considered. And leadership usually limits special sessions to specific unfinished issues.
There’s no guarantee SF4474 would make that cut.
Current status of sweeps gaming in Minnesota
Minnesota would best be described as “mildly” off limits for sweeps casinos right now.
Several sweepstakes casino operators have pulled out of the state or at least ended Sweeps Coin gameplay, with Spin Saga being one of the latest to exit.
This stems from November, when Attorney General Keith Ellison revealed that his office had sent cease-and-desist notices to multiple sweepstakes operators. Among those named was “VG LuckyLand,” likely referencing VGW and its related brands, including LuckyLand Slots, Chumba Casino, Global Poker, LuckyLand Casino, and United Slots. The attorney general’s office also identified Zula Casino and Fortune Coins (now named Fortune Wins) among the recipients.
Although the operators that have left Minnesota thus far are none of the ones named in the cease-and-desist letters, those orders still established that the Attorney General deems Sweeps Coin gameplay illegal, and that interpretation has clearly been enough for some smaller operators to adjust their Minnesota offerings.
