With several sweepstakes casino bans taking effect in July 2026, it is a good time to analyze how California Assembly Bill 831 changed the debate about US sweepstakes laws. The October 2025 law became a template for states that updated their sweepstakes casino laws in 2026, forcing companies supporting the online sweepstakes industry to make hard decisions.
Prior to California’s new law, US statutes against the sweepstakes sites targeted the operators themselves. Any site using a dual-currency system to offer rewards for casino game wins could be targeted by state officials.
AB 831 and an associated lawsuit continued that trend, but expanded enforcement actions to target the geolocation tech and KYC providers, RNG testers, game developers, and payment processors that underpin the industry.
The preamble to the new law stated, “The bill would make it unlawful for any entity, financial institution, payment processor, geolocation provider, gaming content supplier, platform provider, or media affiliate to knowingly and willfully support directly or indirectly the operation, conduct, or promotion of an online sweepstakes game within this state.”
Those in violation of the law would be subject to fines ranging from $1,000 to $25,000. They could also face up to 1 year in county jail in the jurisdiction where they are charged. The California law allows officials to impose both fines and imprisonment concurrently.
California also called for significant disclosures from the companies involved in the sweepstakes casino industry. Sites must give players information on the percentages of customers correctly solving puzzles in the three most recently completed contests that players participated in.
Also, companies must disclose the exact nature and value of any rewards offered. Site operators are prohibited from engaging in a list of fifteen “unfair acts or practices.” This list includes the naming of winners in any contests or using the word “lucky” to describe wins that lead to rewards.
After AB 851 passed, a California lawsuit specifically named game providers such as Evolution, Hacksaw Gaming, and Pragmatic Play.
The suit, filed in a Los Angeles court, also named payment processors such as Trustly and Yodlee. It also called on random-number-generator auditors such as iTech Labs and GLI to provide discovery materials.
Meanwhile, GeoComply, a top geolocation tech provider, became a lynch pin of sweepstakes bans in California and other states. It must erect a geofence that ensures residents inside a state with a ban cannot play. If the geofence is misconfigured, GeoComply has legal responsibility.
Indiana’s ban, which went into effect on July 1, had similar demands of the sweepstakes industry. Indiana’s HB 1052 imposed a $100,000 fine for every single violation of its new sweepstakes ban. Indiana’s law contains a broad ban on multi-currency contests, including games that simulate casino games, sports wagering, or lotteries.
Iowa Senate File 2289, which also takes effect on July 1, grants the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission (IRGC) authority to target dual-currency sites offering simulated casino games. The law allows the IRGC to issue cease-and-desist orders and seek a court injunction to enforce it, but it is not the hard ban that Indiana has.
Maine is different. When a similar ban goes into effect in Maine on July 15, operators must fence the state with the same firmness as Indiana and California. While the fines do not reach the same level, operators continue to exit Maine in anticipation of the new law.
