Share 
To differentiate between sweepstakes casinos and entities like McDonald’s, which has a history of operating a Monopoly-themed sweepstakes-style promotion, the California Senate amended language in Assembly Bill 831 this week.
The newly revised version of the bill now includes a clause noting that the proposed legislation “does not make unlawful game promotions or sweepstakes conducted by for-profit commercial entities on a limited and occasional basis as an advertising and marketing tool that are incidental to substantial bona fide sales of consumer products or services and that are not intended to provide a vehicle for the establishment of ongoing gambling or gaming.”
The amended language in AB 831, legislation that intends to ban most California sweepstakes casinos, also includes a change from “gambling-themed games” to just “gambling.”
Games group sought language change
The language change addresses a point the Social and Promotional Games Association made in a July 8 letter to lawmakers.
In the letter, the group outlined the reasons it opposes AB 831.
“Companies like Starbucks, Microsoft, and Marriott use chance-based sweepstakes as part of customer rewards and loyalty programs. AB 831’s vague definitions risk categorizing these common promotions as criminal activity.”
The letter also defended sweepstakes casinos, saying AB 831 was targeting “safe, legal, and popular entertainment.”
“The products impacted by AB 831 are widely used, free to play, and protected by age gates, geolocation tools, and fraud safeguards. Most users on these platforms play for free and never make a purchase. Those that do make purchases typically do so in nominal amounts on average. They are used by brands to power loyalty programs, promotions, and digital engagement. These are legal tools, not illicit schemes.”
Lawyer says changes not needed
In a post on X, sports betting lawyer Daniel Wallach said the changes are unnecessary.
“This language addresses the false contentions that AB 831 would outlaw traditional sweepstakes promotions like those offered by Marriott, Microsoft, and Starbucks, as well as the California Lottery’s ‘2nd Chance Program’ online games.”
He went on to argue that the corporate promotions in question were protected by existing “limited and occasional” language in statute, while California Lottery promotions are specifically authorized by state law and the state constitution.
Wallach also questioned two other changes to the legislation: changing “casino-style table games” to just “table games” and adding “and willfully” after “knowingly” in a section that now reads:
“It is 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.”
AB 831 is currently set for a third reading following Thursday’s second reading. The earlier version of the bill was unanimously passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The legislation must be passed by the Senate then returned to the California Assembly for a vote on the amendments. It must pass both houses by Sept. 12.
Gov. Gavin Newson would then have until Oct. 12 to either sign or veto the bill.
