Despite missing an initial deadline to continue in the Minnesota Legislature, Minnesota Senate File 4474 — which would ban sweepstakes casinos — was formally approved Friday to proceed forward as a “late bill” and move on to the Senate Finance Committee.
That decision was rubber stamped by a near-unanimous vote from the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, with the lone no vote coming from the Vice Chair, Sen. Ann Rest.
“On the merits, I voted against this bill in [the] Commerce [Committee],” Rest told her fellow committee members. “And on the merits, I’m going to vote against it here as well. But not because it’s a late bill.”
None of the rest of the 10-member committee agreed.
‘We were working with a wide group of stakeholders’
Minnesota’s 2026 legislative session ends on May 18, and the session began on Feb. 17. SF4464, meanwhile, wasn’t filed until March 17, putting it a full month behind schedule compared to bills filed early in the session — as most are.
Compared to his testimony earlier in the week before the Senate State and Local Government Committee, which focused on the content of the bill, chief author Sen. Jordan Rasmussen’s testimony on Friday centered on an explanation for why it took so long to file the legislation.
“The reason it’s late is we were working with a wide group of stakeholders and also analyzing language that was passing in other states, as this is an emerging issue,” Rasmussen said via a Zoom video call. “And then we also had three separate committee stops that this bill has gone through, including the Commerce Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and most recently the State and Local Government Committee. The State and Local Government Committee has requested this go to the Finance Committee while we wait to see if there’s any fiscal notes that come back on this bill.”
Who might those stakeholders be? During Thursday’s hearing before the State and Local Government Committee, Rasmussen highlighted support from Minnesota Family Council, Minnesota Catholic Conference, American Legion, Allied Charities of Minnesota, Canterbury Park (a racetrack with gaming machines), and Minnesota Indian Gaming Association. And Andy Platto, Executive Director of the MIGA, testified in support of SF4474.
Sarah Erickson, a lobbyist representing ARB Interactive, the owner of Modo.us, testified against SF4474. The State and Local Government Committee unanimously approved the bill.
As for members of the Rules and Administration Committee on Friday, other than Rest, Sen. Nick Frentz was the only lawmaker to address SF4474. He explained why he felt comfortable allowing the bill to proceed as a late bill.
“As the chief author, you’re asking us to waive the rules on timing, which we do sometimes and sometimes we don’t,” Frentz said. “I’m going to vote yes to allow the rules to be waived in this case because I believe the chief author deference is an important for the work we do in the Senate, and I think on bills where the chief author isn’t able to meet deadlines or is requesting some procedural lenience to get the bill in the places that they want it, that we should be deferential to them, and so I’m going to do that today, Sen. Rasmussen.”
Senate Concurrent Resolution 6 suspended for SF4474 to proceed
In this case, the Rules and Administration Committee voted to suspend Senate Concurrent Resolution 6 in order to allow SF4474 to proceed.
Minnesota Senate Concurrent Resolution 6 establishes key committee deadlines that determine how and when legislation must advance through the process.
Specifically, it sets three primary deadlines. The first and second deadlines require most policy bills to be approved by relevant committees in at least one chamber. The third deadline applies mainly to finance-related committees, which must act on major budget and spending bills by a later date, reflecting the additional time needed to evaluate fiscal impacts.
For the 2026 session, that policy bill deadline was March 27 … which has come and gone. The finance committee deadline is April 17. So, in effect, the Rules and Administration Committee is allowing SF4474 to miss that March 27 deadline and approving the State and Local Government Committee’s suggestion to send the bill to the Finance Committee — which entails that later, April 17 deadline.
What MN sweeps ban bill says
Rasmussen did also succinctly summarize his bill:
“This bill would define online sweepstakes casinos,” he said, “and then it would ban them in Minnesota law.”
Put less succinctly, SF4474 would not only ban sweeps gaming with Sweeps Coins, it would also extend restrictions to a wide range of businesses connected to the industry — such as banks, payment processors, geolocation services, game developers, platform providers, and even marketing affiliates — if they support illegal sweeps operators.
SF4474 defines an online sweepstakes casino game as any online casino-style game that uses a dual-currency system, where players can exchange virtual currency for prizes, cash, or similar rewards. It also goes on to define what it specifically means by dual-currency system:
A system of payment that allows a person to play or participate in a simulated gambling program for direct or indirect consideration, including consideration associated with a related product, service, or activity, and for which the person playing the simulated gambling program may become eligible for a prize, award, cash, cash equivalent, or chance to win a prize. Dual-currency system does not include a contest for which no consideration is given, either directly or indirectly.
That definition specifically excludes contests that have no form of consideration. Sweepstakes operators could theoretically argue their systems remain because consideration is not required to play. Sweeps casinos offer free methods to obtain Sweeps Coins, the redeemable currency, such as promotional bonuses or daily login rewards.
But, in all likelihood, operators — even those with the deepest pockets — wouldn’t challenge this bill in court, should it become law. The costs of litigation, without the guarantee of a positive result, especially considering more and more states across the country are in fact deeming dual-currency gaming with Sweeps Coins as constituting consideration, likely wouldn’t be worth it.
