California’s Assembly Bill 831, which seeks to ban sweepstakes casinos statewide, has cleared its final committee hurdle and now heads to a full Assembly vote. The measure, already approved by the Senate, could move to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk as soon as a few days, setting the stage for the ban to take effect in early 2026 if enacted.
Based on recent vote history and stakeholder alignment, the odds of the California Assembly voting down AB 831, or Governor Gavin Newsom vetoing it, appear relatively low, though not entirely impossible.
The Assembly is unlikely to reject the bill, given its overwhelming momentum. AB 831 passed the Senate unanimously (36-0), a sign of strong bipartisan support. Senate amendments have already been adopted, and the upcoming Assembly vote is mainly to concur with those changes.
In California, concurrence votes typically follow Senate-passed legislation without major reversals. In addition, the measure has backing from multiple parties, including tribal gaming groups, which adds significant political weight, as these groups frame the bill as a way to protect tribal gaming rights and related economic interests.
With that said, there are factors that could complicate its passage. Some industry stakeholders and even certain tribal entities have voiced concerns about the bill’s vague definitions and the potential for unintended consequences on legitimate promotional businesses.
The fact that the bill was “gut-and-amended” has also raised eyebrows, as sudden, major changes to a bill’s text can create concerns over transparency and rushed legislative processes.
As for Governor Newsom, a veto seems unlikely given the widespread legislative support and tribal endorsements. Still, Newsom has not publicly committed to signing AB 831.
Overall, most observers expect the Assembly to approve the measure and for Newsom to sign it into law. However, the possibility of rejection or a veto cannot be fully dismissed, particularly if opponents successfully make the case that the bill’s current wording risks economic harm or overreach.
While lawmakers have advanced AB 831 with strong bipartisan support, several California tribal nations have voiced opposition to the measure. The Big Lagoon Rancheria, Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation, Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, and Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo Indians argue that the bill could infringe on tribal sovereignty and limit economic opportunities tied to gaming.
Tribal leaders contend that the proposed ban fails to recognize the unique role tribes play in California’s gaming landscape, and warn that sweeping restrictions on sweepstakes casinos may set a precedent that undermines tribal rights more broadly.
After protesting at the state Capitol, these tribes have vowed to keep fighting against the bill.
California represents the single largest market for sweepstakes casinos in the U.S. According to a recent EKG report, California is projected to generate over $2.42 billion in sweepstakes casino sales in 2025, accounting for about 17% of the entire U.S. market.
Without California, operators would lose a major part of their revenue base and national visibility.
Despite such a loss, the industry might hold on in the short term. Sweepstakes casinos are active in many other states, and large markets like Texas, Florida, and Illinois still offer large user bases. These states could partially compensate for California’s absence, especially for operators with diversified reach.
That said, the precedent set by California could be pivotal. With AB 831 under consideration, the potential ban threatens not just lost revenue but also a regulatory model that many states may seek to emulate.
The EKG study also estimates that if California regulated sweepstakes casinos, introducing licensing fees (ex. $500,000 per brand/year) and a 7.25% tax on player purchases, the state could reap $175 million in additional annual tax revenue.
So, while survival without California is possible, the landscape would likely become more volatile and fragmented. Much will depend on how operators and states respond: whether regulation becomes the norm, or bans grow more common.
