Assembly Bill 831 (AB 831), sponsored by Assemblymember Avelino Valencia, passed through its second major hurdle on July 15. It passed through the Senate Public Safety Committee with a 6-0 vote. Last week, the Senate Governmental Organization Committee advanced the proposed legislation with a 15-0 vote.

AB 831 now moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee, which has an upcoming meeting on August 18.

Bill Opposition Grows

AB 831 receives significant backing from tribal gaming representatives and industry associations such as the American Gaming Association and the Sports Betting Alliance. However, it’s also gathering a large coalition of opponents including the SPGA, which represents the interests of sweepstakes casinos and advocates for responsible social casino gaming.

On July 14, the SPGA announced that several high-profile organizations have joined efforts against the bill:

• ACLU California Action
• American Transaction Processors Coalition
• Association of National Advertisers
• Californians United for a Responsible Budget
• SPGA
• Social Gaming Leadership Alliance
• Virtual Gaming World

These groups represent a wide range of interests, from civil liberties to major corporate brands. For example, Google, General Mills, and NBCUniversal are members of the Association of National Advertisers.

Meanwhile, the American Transaction Processors Coalition represents financial institutions like Bank of America and Paysafe.

In a press release, SPGA emphasized the importance of this broad coalition, stating:

“This diverse coalition, including civil liberties advocates, leading businesses, and industry groups, reflects a shared belief that the bill, as written, could have unintended consequences for lawful promotional practices without offering clear consumer protections.”

Opponents have criticized the bill’s overly broad, rushed, and risky language, which was introduced via a “gut-and-amend” process that allowed for sweeping changes late in the legislative cycle.

Critics argue that the bill’s expansive provisions risk criminalizing not only operators but also suppliers, payment processors, and celebrity endorsers.

Proponents Stress Tribal Sovereignty and Consumer Protection

As with prior hearings, proponents of the ban included tribal gaming groups. They include the Yuhaaviatam of the San Manuel Nation, the California Nations Indian Gaming Association (CNIGA), and the Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations (TASIN).

They argue that they hold exclusive rights to regulated gambling in California. Sweepstakes casinos undermine this exclusivity by operating illegally.

San Bernardino County District Attorney Jason Anderson spoke in favor of the prohibition. He noted that sweepstakes casinos lack consumer protection tools to prevent minors from accessing the platforms.

Anderson indicated that multiple states have now banned sweepstakes casinos.

He also clarified that the AB 831 language does not prohibit traditional sweepstakes. Furthermore, he added that the bill and the District Attorney’s office are not interested in penalizing players, but the operators, which are often offshore companies.

Legal Concerns and Planned Amendments

In opposition, Duane Morris partner Bill Gantz pointed out that some tribal groups operate social casinos with prizes of real-world value without any regulation or oversight.

He argued that there’s no evidence to support the claims of potential risks associated with the platforms. He added that they operate within California’s laws.

Meanwhile, in a written statement, the ACLU California Action warned that the bill’s broad language could potentially criminalize individuals involved in legitimate online sweepstakes, not just operators of sweepstakes casinos.

Responding to these concerns, the bill sponsor told the committee that upcoming amendments will clarify the bill’s scope:

“Things like payment processors, financial institutions, geolocation providers, media affiliates and also individuals would not be held liable if this bill were to pass. This is solely going to focus on the entities that are providing the sweepstakes types of platforms.”

The committee chair, Senator Jesse Arreguín, added that committee members and Valencia were able to come up with amendments that will focus on the operators and not other businesses and individuals.

The post ACLU, Industry Groups Unite Against California Sweepstakes Casino Ban Bill as AB 831 Advances appeared first on CasinoBeats.

With a 15-0 vote, the committee passed AB 831 and advanced it to the Public Safety Committee.

The committee has a scheduled hearing on July 15. Should the second committee approve the bill, it would move to a Senate floor vote. It will then return to the Assembly, which passed it in May, if further amendments are made.

Tribes and Sports Betting Operators Urge Ban

During the roughly 45-minute session chaired by Senator Steve Padilla, representatives from the Native Tribes, including the San Manuel Nation and the California Nations Indian Gaming Association (CNIGA), argued for closing loopholes that allow unregulated sweepstakes casinos to operate in the state.

Representatives from the Sports Betting Alliance (SBA), a trade group representing sports betting operators, echoed the concerns of the tribes.

The SBA emphasized that these platforms undermine tribal gaming exclusivity, threaten regulated markets, and lack proper consumer protections.

VGW, SPGA Call for Regulation Instead of Prohibition

Opponents, including VGW and the Social Gaming Leadership Alliance (SGLA), contested that the bill is overly broad, rushed, and risks criminalizing players and legitimate businesses.

In its opposition argument included in the committee’s bill analysis, VGW, the parent company of Chumba Casino, LuckyLand Slots, and Global Poker, asks lawmakers to scrap the “rushed, gut-and-amend legislation.” The company says they should instead focus on regulation.

VGW states that it aims to collaborate with lawmakers to establish a regulatory framework that will protect consumers while generating a new revenue stream for the state. The operator notes:

“The economic opportunity is significant. Based on industry projections by Eilers & Krejcik, California could generate annual revenue of $149 million through sale tax alone. Currently, there is no method for us to pay sales tax in California because ours is a digital product, but this is something we would be happy to do under an appropriate framework. We are also open to other potential sensible taxation frameworks and/or revenue stream to benefit the people of California.”

Meanwhile, the Social and Promotional Games Association (SPGA) called AB 831 “too vague, too rushed, and too risky.” The SPGA is a trade group representing the interests of the sweepstakes casino industry and advocating for responsible social casino gaming.

The association warns that the bill threatens free speech and legitimate commerce. It exposes app developers, influencers, and advertisers to harsh penalties simply for “supporting” these games.

The SPGA stresses that no evidence of consumer harm has been presented. It added that nearly 20,000 Californians have spoken in favor of sweepstakes casinos. Meanwhile, the bill would damage lawful, popular entertainment and major brand promotions.

Like VGW, SPGA asks lawmakers to reject AB 831 and instead create a regulatory framework.

Lawmakers Express Concerns Over Process and Scope

While the sweepstakes casino ban bill, introduced by Assemblymember Avelino Valencia at the end of June, passed unanimously, several lawmakers raised concerns about the process’s transparency, legal reach, and potential unintended consequences.

Senators also questioned the urgency surrounding the bill, especially as the sweepstakes provisions were inserted into an unrelated tribal gaming bill, a “gut-and-amend” approach.

The legislation targets operators, suppliers, payment processors, and celebrity endorsers. One such endorser is Ryan Seacrest, who is facing a lawsuit over his involvement with Chumba. However, there was confusion about whether it also targeted users of sweepstakes casinos.

Valencia stated that there will likely need to be a change in the language to clarify that it doesn’t include users. Additionally, he agreed to remove references to cardrooms from the bill to secure neutrality from that sector. The Assemblymember clarifies that the focus remains on sweepstakes operators and their support networks.

Aside from sweepstakes casinos, cardrooms, and daily fantasy sports (DFS) operators are also under threat in California. Attorney General Rob Bonta has announced sweeping changes to cardroom regulations, although his proposals have faced significant backlash. He also recently issued a legal opinion declaring that DFS is illegal in California.

These overlapping efforts reflect a broader crackdown on unregulated and gray-area gaming activities across California.

The post California Senate Committee Unanimously Advances Sweepstakes Casino Ban Bill appeared first on CasinoBeats.

The funding round, the company’s second after raising $2 million in 2023, was spearheaded by LeBron James and Maverick Carter‘s LRMR Ventures, as well as Jason Stein’s SC Holdings.

Matthew Berry has been widely recognized as a pioneer in fantasy sports writing since the early 2000s.

He served as ESPN’s Senior Fantasy Sports Analyst from 2007 to 2022. Berry left ESPN for NBC when the former didn’t allow him to co-own Fantasy Life. He now hosts NBC’s Football Night in America.

In a press release, Berry shared his excitement for the company’s growth:

“My entire adult life has been about helping fantasy players… Fantasy Life is the culmination of my decades of experience — a destination for every kind of player… We’re building a platform as obsessed with fantasy as we are… I can’t wait for everyone to check out the new features and win more titles.”

Star-Studded Support Fuels Rapid Growth

In addition to LeBron James, Maverick Carter, and Jason Stein, notable new investors include:

• Eberg Capital LLC, a private equity firm founded by Roger Ehrenberg, co-owner of the Miami Marlins and Alpine Formula One Racing
• Bolt Ventures, the family office of David Blitzer, co-founder of Harris Blitzer Sports & Entertainment
• Gerry Cardinale, Founder and Managing Partner of RedBird Capital
• Jeff Shell, Partner and Chairman of Sports and Entertainment, RedBird Capital Partners
• Chad Hurley, Co-Founder of YouTube
• Wasserman Ventures, the investment arm of global sports, music, entertainment, and culture company Wasserman
• Tony Khan, Owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars, Fulham Football Club, All Elite Wrestling, and TruMedia Networks
• SUM Ventures, founded by Garrett Gilbertson, includes NFL star George Kittle and retired Eagles Super Bowl Champion Brent Celek.
• John Legend, Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony (EGOT) Award Winning Artist
• Larry Fitzgerald Jr., Co-Founder of Trenches Capital and former NFL wide receiver
• Donald Mustard, Co-Creator of Fortnite and former Chief Creative Officer at Epic Games

Existing Fantasy Life investors include NFL stars Josh Allen, Joe Burrow, Ja’Marr Chase, and Austin Ekeler.

The support has helped Fantasy Life to grow at a rapid pace. Since launching in 2022, the platform’s revenue has increased by 737%. That includes a 230% jump from 2024 to the first half of 2025.

Reimagining Fantasy: Guillotine Leagues and Fantasy HQ

With the extra investment, Fantasy Life is expanding its innovative product offerings. The company acquired the Guillotine Leagues platform about a year ago and has since integrated it into its own platform.

Thanks in part to the new funding, the company unveiled a revamped version of Guillotine Leagues, including a fully redesigned app to enhance the player experience.

Guillotine Leagues is a high-stakes, elimination-style fantasy football format. Each contest starts with 4-18 teams, and each week, the lowest-scoring team is eliminated (guillotined).

After elimination, the team’s entire roster is placed back into the free-agent pool. That allows others protection against potential injuries and an opportunity to strengthen their rosters. The last team that remains standing at the end of the season is crowned the champion.

Fantasy Life says the format offers “unparalleled flexibility and excitement, ensuring that every player remains engaged and competitive throughout the season.” The platform highlights that, on average, users spend 22 minutes per session, indicating their high engagement.

The company is also rolling out Fantasy HQ, presented by Mike’s Hard Lemonade. Fantasy HQ is a personalized hub for player insights, real-time data, and league tools. Key features include:

• Syncing leagues across all providers for a fully customized experience.
• Custom trade, waiver, and start/sit advice, personally tailored to each user’s team, needs, and matchups.
• Mike’s Fantasy Scoreboard: an all-in-one command center with side-by-side views of all matchups, allowing users to track multiple teams and leagues simultaneously.

DFS Crackdowns Loom: Why Timing Matters for Fantasy Life

Fantasy Life’s announcement comes at a time when the fantasy industry’s attention is focused on California, the largest market in the US.

Last week, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a legal opinion that daily fantasy sports (DFS) are illegal under state law.

Bonta argued that DFS contests are not skill games, a topic raised by Underdog Fantasy in a failed lawsuit against the Attorney General.

Bonta also emphasized that the decisive factor in the outcome of DFS contests is the athletes’ on-field performance, which resembles wagering on horse racing or sports betting.

Furthermore, the Attorney General notes that operators collect fees and establish prize structures that are not contingent upon the number of entrants. This, therefore, makes the contests more similar to traditional gambling products than to recreational competitions.

It’s essential to clarify that Bonta’s opinion does not render DFS illegal in California, as the courts or the legislature can ultimately decide. He also did not state his opinion on traditional season-long fantasy contests.

Still, his opinion can trigger similar responses from other states, a trend already seen with pick ‘em contests. In these formats, users predict whether an athlete will exceed or fall short of a specific performance benchmark. That has drawn criticism, with some arguing it closely resembles player prop betting in traditional sports betting.

In response, several gambling regulars, including those from Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Kansas, New York, and Wyoming, have taken action against these contests.

Fantasy Life does not offer these DFS bets. However, it provides expert insights, projections, and recommendation tools for Pick ’Em contests hosted by partners like Underdog Fantasy.

The heightened scrutiny of DFS in California and elsewhere underscores the shifting regulatory landscape and the importance of diversified fantasy gaming offerings such as Fantasy Life’s Guillotine Leagues and Fantasy HQ.

The post Fantasy Life Raises $7 Million to Launch New Platform and Expand Guillotine Leagues appeared first on CasinoBeats.

Bonta’s office released its opinion on July 3. It categorizes DFS contests as illegal wagering under Penal Code section 337a. It falls foul of the code given participants pay money in exchange for a chance to win, based on the uncertain future performance of real-world athletes.

The AG emphasized that even though skill may be involved (an argument Underdog Fantasy raised in a lawsuit against Bonta), that does not exempt DFS from being considered illegal wagering.

Bonta Argues Draft-Style DFS is Not a Skill Game

In the 33-page opinion, Bonta says that draft-style DFS games violate state law. He argues that they function similarly to wagering on sports events rather than skill-based contests.

The AG draws a distinction between draft-style DFS and traditional season-long fantasy leagues. In both, users select a team of real-world athletes in upcoming sporting events. But, unlike season-long contests, draft-style DFS contests are decided by each athlete’s performance in a single game.

In draft-style DFS, participants select athletes using various methods, which may involve skill. Still, they do not compete in or influence sports events. Their success depends entirely on outcomes beyond their control, much like sports betting.

The AG emphasizes that the decisive factor remains the athletes’ on-field performance, which resembles wagering on horse racing or sports betting.

Furthermore, Bonta points out that operators collect fees and set prize structures that do not depend on the number of entrants. That makes the contests more similar to traditional gambling products than to recreational competitions.

Bonta concludes that under Penal Code section 337a, which prohibits betting on sports contest outcomes, draft-style DFS falls under the definition of illegal gambling in California.

All Pick’ Em DFS Deemed Illegal

Bonta also addresses Pick ‘Em-style DFS contests, which have surged in popularity but have attracted intense scrutiny.

In these contests, users select two to six athletes and predict whether each will exceed or fall short of a specific performance benchmark. An example is whether Steph Curry will score five threes in a game.

Bonta concludes that Pick’ Em contests are essentially proposition (or props) bets available at traditional sportsbooks. As with draft-style DFS, the AG concludes that Pick’ Em DFS is illegal wagering in California.

“As with many traditional sportsbook bets, pick ’em players place a bilateral wager against the game operator. The player and operator each ‘promise[] to give money…upon the determination of an uncertain or unascertained event’ (the sports competitions) being resolved ‘in a particular way'”

Bonta says his opinion falls in line with other state regulators, including in Arizona, Florida, Virginia, and Wyoming. These states have declared that Pick’ Em DFS is a form of parlay or props betting.

Furthermore, the California Attorney General addresses peer-to-peer Pick’ Em formats. Many operators, including recently PrizePicks in California, have adopted these newer contests to sidestep legal challenges and regulatory scrutiny.

In peer-to-peer contests, users play against each other. The odds and payouts are determined by each user’s performance relative to the other players in the pool.

However, Bonta’s opinion makes it clear that these contests are also illegal wagering, because players risk money on the outcomes of third-party sports performances.

Season-Long Fantasy Contests Not Addressed

Notably, Bonta did not address traditional, season-long fantasy sports contests as the request that prompted his opinion specifically asked for a decision on DFS.

Still, the AG emphasized the difference between DFS and season-long fantasy numerous times. The latter is often played among friends and small groups for entertainment, involving low or no financial stakes.

While Bonta does not explicitly address season-long fantasy contests, some legal experts believe his reasoning could extend to them in the future. According to Adjunct McGeorge School of Law Professor Chris Micheli, based on his DFS opinion, Bonta “would find the same way for the seasonal [fantasy contests].”

Governor and Operators Disagree

Shortly after Bonta released the opinion, according to his office, Gov. Gavin Newsom disagreed with it:

“The Attorney General, in his independent capacity, issued this opinion — not the Governor’s office,” noted Izzy Gardon, a spokesman for Gov. Newsom.

“While the Governor does not agree with the outcome, he welcomes a constructive path forward in collaboration with all stakeholders.”

J.T. Foley, Executive Director of the Coalition for Fantasy Sports, said the coalition agrees with the governor. He emphasized that the opinion does not change the law:

“The law has not changed, a fact the last two Attorneys General, Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra, recognized as they specifically declined any similar action. We are hopeful the Attorney General heeds the Governor’s call to find a constructive solution that preserves the games that California sports fans love.”

The Coalition for Fantasy Sports represents companies like Underdog Fantasy, PrizePicks, Betr, Dabble Fantasy, and Splash Sports.

Is DFS Now Illegal in California?

Despite the strong language in Bonta’s opinion, Attorney General opinions do not alter the law. They act as an advisory interpretation of the law, intended to guide enforcement agencies and lawmakers.

In the court rejection of Underdog Fantasy’s lawsuit attempting to block the opinion, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Jennifer Rockwell emphasized this as well:

“Further, the Attorney General’s issuance of an opinion of pursuant to Government Code section 12519 does not effect any change in the law,” citing case law stating that “the opinions of the California Attorney General are advisory only and do not carry the weight of law.”

For DFS to become illegal, the legislature or courts would need to act. That means a court ruling or an explicit statutory change. Still, legal experts, including Micheli, note that California courts traditionally grant “a fair amount of deference” to the Attorney General’s legal opinions.

Bottom Line: Daily fantasy sports contests are not yet illegal in California. Still, the Attorney General’s opinion increases the legal risk and sets the stage for potential enforcement or legislative action.

The post California Attorney General Declares DFS Illegal: What It Means for Fantasy Sports Fans appeared first on CasinoBeats.

At the same time, rival PrizePicks has already pivoted to a peer-to-peer model in anticipation of this shift.

California Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta is expected to issue a long-awaited legal opinion on DFS legality as soon as today. The opinion, although technically advisory, is likely to have a significant ripple effect on operators and potentially reshape the state’s multibillion-dollar DFS market.

Underdog Challenged Bonta’s Upcoming Decision

Underdog Fantasy, one of the biggest DFS operators in the country, filed a lawsuit on June 30. It asked the courts to block Bonta from issuing the opinion.

The operator argued that DFS contests are games of skill, not chance (which constitutes gambling).

The company also questioned Bonta’s authority to issue such an opinion. It pointed out that the opinion would be a response to a request made by Sen. Scott Wilk, who is no longer in office.

Furthermore, Underdog claimed that a potential DFS ban would only serve to benefit native tribes. The tribes, which have exclusivity over legal gambling in California, have long argued that unregulated sectors, such as fantasy sports, are illegal gambling.

Court Denies Underdog’s Lawsuit

On July 2, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Jennifer Rockwell denied Underdog’s motion for a temporary restraining order.

One of the reasons Judge Rockwell refused to block Bonta’s upcoming opinion was that Underdog did not demonstrate that the opinion would cause them immediate, irreparable harm.

Additionally, the judge noted that since Sen. Wilk made the request in October 2023. That means Underdog had over a year and a half to challenge it. The delay weakened the operator’s argument for emergency relief.

Rockwell also emphasized that the AG’s opinion does not change the laws:

“Further, the Attorney General’s issuance of an opinion of pursuant to Government Code section 12519 does not effect any change in the law,” citing case law stating that “the opinions of the California Attorney General are advisory only and do not carry the weight of law.”

As a result, Rockwell concluded:

“Accordingly, Petitioners have not established that they will suffer any harm as a result of the issuance of Opinion No. 23-1001. The Ex Parte Application is denied. No hearing will be held.”

It remains unclear whether Underdog will appeal the decision.

PrizePicks Changes Offerings in California

Underdog’s rival, PrizePicks, took a different approach in anticipation of Bonta’s anticipated opinion.

The company changed its product format in California, discontinuing the popular against-the-house Pick ‘Em games on June 30. It now offers only its peer-to-peer “Arena” contests in the state.

In both formats, users select performance projections for two to six players. For example, if a quarterback will throw over a certain number of yards. The difference is that in the now-discontinued format, users play against the house, which determines the odds and payouts.

Meanwhile, in the “Arena” peer-to-peer, the odds and payouts are determined by each user’s performance relative to the other players in the pool, similar to traditional fantasy contest leaderboards. The prize pool is distributed among the top finishers.

PrizePicks’ pivot is not unprecedented. The company introduced peer-to-peer contests as a response to regulatory scrutiny in several states over the past few years.

As a similar scenario is unfolding in California, PrizePicks is likely aiming to position itself on firmer legal ground. California is the largest DFS market in the US, making the stakes particularly high.

In its lawsuit, Underdog Fantasy stated that the state accounts for approximately 10% of its revenue. That suggests that PrizePicks may face a similar level of exposure.

If California were to ban DFS, it would result in severe financial consequences for PrizePicks, Underdog, and other operators, such as DraftKings and FanDuel.

AG’s Opinion Could Come Today

Bonta’s office has not confirmed when he will release his opinion. Still, Sacramento news outlet KCRA 3, which first broke the news, claims multiple sources have indicated the AG would deliver it by today.

When Underdog filed its lawsuit, some speculated that it might delay Bonta’s decision. However, with Judge Rockwell denying the lawsuit, it now appears to remain on schedule.

Still, if Underdog files an appeal, it could mean additional delays.

It’s important to note that, as the judge emphasized, Bonta’s legal opinion does not change the law.

Still, McGeorge School of Law adjunct professor Chris Micheli notes that California courts traditionally grant “a fair amount of deference” to the Attorney General’s legal opinions. That means they can strongly influence future enforcement and policy decisions.

The post California AG DFS Ban Opinion Expected Today as Court Blocks Underdog’s Challenge; PrizePicks Quickly Adapts appeared first on CasinoBeats.

The company argues that DFS contests are games of skill; therefore, they are legal in California. It also claims Bonta is overreaching his legal authority by attempting to issue a statewide ban.

Underdog also claims that prohibition would not protect consumers. Instead, it would serve the interests of California native tribes, who seek to eliminate competition.

The operator warns that banning DFS would result in severe financial consequences for the company and the state. Meanwhile, it would deprive millions of California players of a game that has been around for decades.

While unconfirmed, multiple sources expect that Bonta will deliver his opinion by July 3.

Underdog Argues DFS Are Games of Skill

The operator emphasizes that DFS contests rely on skill, not chance. According to the lawsuit, participants’ skills influence their success in DFS. They include their ability to analyze player statistics, matchups, and other factors.

Underdog claims that participants who utilize those factors and build the most competitive roster are similar to a general manager in traditional sports.

The company further claims that DFS participants do not wager on the outcome of a single event. Instead, they create lineups of athletes from different teams, with points awarded based on the combined performance of these athletes over time, rather than in a single game.

The plaintiff supports its position by citing an Illinois Supreme Court case (Dew-Becker v. Wu), in which it ruled that DFS contests are predominantly determined by skill. The court rejected the state’s Attorney General’s opinion that DFS is illegal gambling.

Moreover, Underdog cites studies by statistical and economic experts. The studies concluded that DFS outcomes depend on the contestant’s skill in assembling the best fantasy roster.

AG Lacks Authority, Says Underdog

One of the central arguments of the DFS operator lawsuit is that Bonta lacks the legal authority to issue an opinion on a DFS ban.

Underdog asserts that the AG’s role does not involve making determinations that lead to new regulatory decisions. Instead, it only provides legal interpretations to current state officials on “any question of law relating to their respective offices.”

The plaintiff points out that the original request for Bonta’s opinion was by former Senator Scott Wilk, who is no longer in office. That, the company says, further invalidates Bonta’s authority to act.

Underdog emphasizes that determining whether DFS violates California law requires extensive fact-finding. That includes analyzing whether skill outweighs chance in contest outcomes, which goes beyond a straightforward legal interpretation:

“Ultimately, the Attorney General cannot determine whether DFS contests are prohibited under California law without some consideration and ascertainment of the relevant facts. In other words, at the core of the requested opinion, the Attorney General is being asked ‘whether the facts satisfy the [relevant legal] standard,’ which is not a purely legal question.”

Moreover, the lawsuit highlights that several previous attorney generals, including former Vice President Kamala Harris, declined to issue opinions on the legality of DFS, acknowledging the need for legislative or judicial resolution.

Underdog Claims a Ban Would Only Benefit Tribes

Underdog claims the ban would primarily benefit California’s tribal gaming industry rather than protecting consumers:

“The opinion, which Bonta’s predecessors declined to issue, will satisfy only one constituency, a small handful of the powerful tribes that maintain a monopoly on gaming in the State. On information and belief, the tribes have met numerous times with Attorney General Bonta and his representatives and lobbied for the opinion to be issued.”

Underdog further emphasizes that former Senator Scott Wilk made the original request prompting this opinion. The company claims Wilk “has notably been a supporter of tribal gaming-backed initiatives in the past.”

California’s tribal groups have historically sought regulatory interventions to eliminate competition from DFS operators and cardrooms, arguing that these entities infringe on the tribes’ exclusivity under their gaming compacts.

Moreover, Bonta is also facing backlash due to his recent proposals targeting California’s cardroom industry. The AG argues the changes aim to redefine operational rules for cardrooms. However, opponents claim they will have a detrimental effect on municipal budgets. They say that the changes will also result in the loss of thousands of jobs.

Critics of these changes echo Underdog’s argument that Bonta’s actions are a regulatory overreach.

In contrast, organizations representing California tribes, such as the California Nations Indian Gaming Association (CNIGA) and the Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations (TASIN), have publicly supported the Attorney General’s move to ban DFS.

Tribal representatives maintain that the opinion is crucial to addressing what they call “illegal and unregulated gaming.”

Economic Consequences and Broader Impact

Underdog warns that a DFS ban in California would result in severe economic consequences for the company and the state’s broader gaming market. The company claims that 10% of its revenue comes from California. A potential ban would cause immediate and lasting financial harm.

“Specifically, the issuance of the opinion would severely and irreparably impair Underdog’s relationships with service providers, business partners, and investors, both in California and nationally. It would also cause many of Underdog’s customers in California to withdraw money from their accounts and irreparably damage the Company’s reputation and goodwill among its customers in the State. None of these harms would be compensable through monetary damages.”

Underdog also warns that a ban could trigger widespread job losses and shutter legitimate businesses, further harming California’s economy.

The post Underdog Fantasy Sues California AG to Stop DFS Ban, Cites Lack of Authority and Tribal Interests appeared first on CasinoBeats.

While Bonta’s office has not confirmed this, Sacramento news outlet KCRA 3 reports that multiple sources have confirmed that a formal opinion should arrive within days.

A potential ban could force operators such as DraftKings, FanDuel, PrizePicks, and Underdog Fantasy to withdraw from the nation’s largest market, jeopardizing hundreds of millions in annual handle.

Bonta Was Asked For a Legal Opinion

A decision by Bonta stems from a request by lawmakers and tribal gaming leaders. They argue that DFS is unregulated gambling and undermines tribal exclusivity, following voters’ rejection of sports betting in 2022.

Earlier this week, the California Nations of Indian Gaming Association and the Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nationals sent a letter to California lawmakers, warning them that DFS operators might be working to push legislation regarding their legal status in the state.

McGeorge School of Law adjunct professor Chris Micheli feels that if Bonta believes that DFS operators violate the Penal Code, he would file a lawsuit to enforce his interpretation of the law.

The courts will ultimately decide the matter. Still, Micheli notes that California courts traditionally grant “a fair amount of deference” to the Attorney General’s legal opinions.

Tribal leaders have welcomed the news of a potential ban. In contrast, the Coalition for Fantasy Sports stated that the opinion would be devastating to millions of Californians who enjoy playing fantasy sports.

It is expected that the California Department of Justice will release the opinion by July 3rd.

Several States Have Questioned Pick-’Em DFS

California is far from alone. Several other states have already taken action against one of the fastest-growing DFS formats: pick ’em contests.

These contests, available at platforms like PrizePicks and Underdog Fantasy, allow users to predict individual player stats. For example, whether an NBA player will have more than five rebounds in a game.

Critics claim that this type of DFS contest closely resembles player prop bets available at regulated sportsbooks, classifying it as illegal gambling.

States that have cracked down on pick ’em DFS include:

• Arkansas: In 2024, the state’s gambling regulator deemed that the contests violated gambling laws.
• Florida: In 2023, the state sent cease-and-desist letters to operators deeming pick ’em contests illegal.
• Illinois: In April this year, the gambling regulator sent cease-and-desist letters to operators.
• Michigan: Passed a law in 2023 banning pick ’em DFS contests.
• Kansas: Sent cease-and-desist letters in 2024.
• New York: In 2023, it adopted regulations to ban DFS contests that mimic sports betting.
• Wyoming: In 2023, it warned operators of felony and multi-million dollar charges.

In addition to these states, Colorado lawmakers are debating whether the contests are legal. The actions by the state gambling regulators have forced platforms to stop offering the controversial contests in these jurisdictions.

Despite the challenges, DFS operators have begun adapting to the scrutiny by adjusting their products. That includes the introduction of peer-to-peer props or parimutuel-style contests.

Last month, Underdog Fantasy relaunched draft-style DFS in New York after reaching a $17.5 million settlement with the state.

Cardrooms and Sweepstakes Casinos Are Also Under Threat in CA

Daily fantasy sports aren’t the only target. California is also moving against two other gaming sectors that have long operated in legal gray areas: cardrooms and sweepstakes casinos.

Recently, Bonta proposed changes to the state’s gaming laws governing cardrooms. Those include changes to rules concerning third-party dealers, known as Third-Party Proposition Player Services (TPPPS), and restrictions on blackjack-style games.

Cardrooms and native tribes have long clashed as the tribes have exclusivity over gambling in the state, but California gave a compromise to the cardrooms through TPPPS.

By using a third-party dealer, cardrooms technically do not offer banked games (where players play against the house), which are exclusive to native tribes. The tribes, however, argue that the cardrooms offer illegal gambling.

Bonta’s changes include that only seated players can act as TPPPS, and they must rotate. He also proposes changes that essentially ban the game of blackjack. His proposals have met significant backlash from city officials, business owners, and the general public.

Meanwhile, a proposal to ban sweepstakes casinos in California surfaced earlier this week. In addition to prohibiting the platforms, the proposed legislation makes it illegal to promote sweepstakes casinos. That could get several celebrities in hot water.

They include Drake, who has a deal with Stake.us, Paris Hilton, who promotes WOW Vegas, Ryan Seacrest, who endorses Chumba Casino, as well as John Daly, who has been featured in Modo’s social media posts and promotions.

The post California May Soon Ban Online Fantasy Sports Platforms appeared first on CasinoBeats.

Howard Glaser, Global Head of Government Affairs at Light & Wonder, reported the news on LinkedIn, posting:

“A bill introduced today with the backing of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association follows similar lines as the New York legislation passed unanimously this week, making it unlawful to facilitate or promote the operation of illegal online sweepstakes casinos by any “person, entity, financial institution, payment processor, geolocation provider, gaming content supplier, platform provider, or media affiliate”.” 

The bill has not yet become public, and various reports suggest that language targeting sweepstakes casinos will be included in an amendment to bill AB831, which proposes changes to tribal gaming compacts. 

Bill Could Target Drake And Other Sweeps Promoters

Glaser went on to add: “The language of the bill suggests that California celebrities pushing sweeps casinos – such as Drake, Paris Hilton and Ryan Seacrest- would be subject to liability for their roles in illegal casino advertising and promotion.”

Drake has a multi-million dollar deal to promote Stake, one of the leading sweepstakes casinos. The company is already facing a lawsuit in California over claims its sweeps model is in violation of California gambling laws. 

Additionally, Ryan Seacrest has a deal with VGW-operated Chumba Casino, but is also facing legal action for his social media promotions of the platform. 

Sports betting and gaming lawyer Daniel Wallach posted on X that: “California already has a statutory ban on land-based sweepstakes gambling businesses. 

“This bill would extend the reach of that statute to online sweepstakes casinos, although those businesses are likely already illegal under well-settled CA case law.”

In the Stake case, however, a judge granted the company’s motion to send the matter to arbitration. 

Judge James Selna did not make a ruling on Stake’s legal status, requiring the dispute to be resolved through private arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (AAA).  

Explicit legislation targeting the sweepstakes model could have a significant impact on the platform’s future in California. 

Stake currently operates through Stake.us because it does not hold iGaming licenses in legalized jurisdictions. 

California Joins States Fighting Against Sweepstakes

Other states have also proposed legislation to tackle sweepstakes casinos, as well as utilizing the powers already available to target these platforms. 

New York is awaiting the governor’s approval on a bill that will explicitly ban sweepstakes’ dual-currency models. 

Sweepstakes lobby groups have urged Gov. Kathy Huchal to veto the bill. 

In the meantime, Attorney General Letitia James issued cease-and-desist letters to 26 sweepstakes operators. The majority of platforms have already exited the state. 

Montana and Connecticut are the only states to have passed legislation that explicitly bans these platforms. 

In contrast, Louisiana passed a bill in both the House and the Senate unanimously; however, the legislation was vetoed by Governor Jeff Landry. 

Landry cited the bill as unnecessary, as the state already has enough power to target unlicensed gambling operators, which include sweepstakes casinos. 

Louisiana’s Gaming Control Board issued cease-and-desist letters to 40 gambling operators following Landry’s veto. 

Tribes Urging Action Against Sweepstakes Casinos

Reports suggest tribal leaders are pushing for the legislation in California. 

Victor Rocha, the Conference Chair of the Indian Gaming Association (IGA), previously commented on sweepstakes casinos: “They’re unregulated. They’re untaxed. This is gambling on training wheels. It’s a bunch of lawyers who are spitting in our face and looking at gray areas thinking that we’re not going to act.”

The chairman also pointed out that “these guys don’t pay money into the system. When we’re talking about cannibalization, this is what we’re talking about. It’s companies like this that take money out of California.”

The legislation is in its early stages, and more details are expected to emerge in the near future about the exact terminology used in the bill. 

However, if New York passes its legislation and California also introduces a similar ban on sweepstakes, it could have a significant impact on the industry. 

Glaser concluded his LinkedIn post by stating: “California’s action – and certainly if, as expected, either Texas or Florida follow suit- would spell the end of viable sweepstakes casino operations in the US.”

The post California Lawmakers Considering Ban On Sweepstakes Casinos appeared first on CasinoBeats.

Per a release posted on Patch, the resort and casino is set to hold a free, 22-minute fireworks exhibition for its guests and Southern Temecula residents on Friday, July 4, to mark Independence Day. The event will begin at 9 pm.

The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians operates Pechanga. The casino-resort said its fireworks display would be an “incredible pyrotechnic show.”

It claimed that the display would be viewable from vantage points throughout the South Temecula area.

It also added that the FM station Q103.3 would air a coordinated soundtrack timed to provide an audio backdrop for the fireworks.

Pechanga Fireworks Display to Be ‘Visible from Much of Temecula’

The casino-resort stated that its guests and other fireworks enthusiasts will be permitted to park for free in designated areas.

It also noted that it would not allow day camping, grilling, open flames, glass, alcoholic beverages, illegal substances, sparklers, or other personal fireworks in its viewing zones.

Pechanga operates on the Pechanga Indian Reservation. It opened its doors in June 2002 and claims to have around 19,000 sqm of gaming space.

Pechanga boosted its hotel capacity to over 1,000 rooms in a 2018 renovation. It also features a golf course, a swimming pool complex, a convention center, and a theater.

It also has pro sports interests. The operator signed a deal to become an official partner of the Los Angeles Rams and Los Angeles Chargers at the end of the last decade.

In May this year, Pechanga extended its naming rights deal with San Diego’s premium sports arena until December 2026. The venue will continue to be known as Pechanga Arena San Diego, following an initial deal signed in 2018.

‘Spirit of Freedom’

Pechanga said its free fireworks celebration would “encourage family and friends to share in the spirit of freedom and independence fought for by millions of service men and women, including hundreds of thousands of Native American enlistees.”

In May, the resort-casino announced that its slot machines had awarded their third million-dollar-plus jackpot winner in as many months.

The winning guest is a native of Temecula. The bettor walked away with $1,044,559.11 after their fifth spin of a Dragon Link slot machine, operated by Aristocrat Gaming.

The two previous winners scored jackpots of $1,232,300.19 and $4,178,889.94 in March and April.

The post Pechanga Resort Casino in California Will Host Free Fireworks Display to Mark July 4 appeared first on CasinoBeats.

If approved, the new law would prohibit platforms using dual-currency payment systems from operating in the state. An official ban is now just a formality, as most sweepstakes operators no longer serve New York customers.

About a week ago, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced that her office had targeted and shut down 26 sweepstakes platforms. Those were in addition to over a dozen others who voluntarily left the state a few months prior.

New York Joins Montana and Connecticut With a Ban

If Senate Bill 5935 becomes law, it would mean New York will become the third state to prohibit sweepstakes casinos in the past month.

Montana led the way when it became the first jurisdiction to ban the platforms at the end of May. Meanwhile, a week ago, Connecticut also banned sweepstakes casinos along with lottery courier apps like Jackpocket.

Louisiana would have been on the list as well. The state’s legislature passed a ban bill, but Gov. Jeff Landry vetoed it. He stated that a formal ban was not necessary. Landry believes that state authorities and gambling regulators can handle the fight against unregulated gambling.

Earlier this year, the Mississippi and Maryland Senate both passed ban bills. However, for various reasons, the proposals stalled in the House.

Furthermore, New Jersey and Ohio still have active bills banning sweepstakes casinos. The New Jersey legislative session ends at the end of the year. Meanwhile, Ohio has a two-year session, meaning both states have plenty of time to pass a ban.

Regulatory Crackdowns Expand in LA, MS, and CA

On the same day that the New York Assembly passed SB5935, sweepstakes casinos became a target of state gambling regulators and lawsuits in Louisiana, Mississippi, and California.

Following Gov. Landry’s veto, the Louisiana Gaming Control Board announced that it had targeted 40 unlicensed offshore and sweepstakes casinos.

The official announcement does not specify any particular operators. However, it’s believed that VGW, the parent of Chumba Casino, LuckyLand Slots, and Global Poker, is on the list.

On the same day, the Mississippi Gaming Commission announced it had served several offshore casinos and Chumba Casino with cease-and-desist letters.

Meanwhile, WOW Vegas now faces a class action lawsuit in California. The lawsuit alleges that the company has failed to register as a foreign corporation in the state of California.

Class action lawsuits against sweepstakes casinos are not uncommon. Approximately ten days ago, High 5 Entertainment became a target in a lawsuit filed in New Jersey. Earlier this year, the company agreed to pay $24.9 million in a separate case in Washington.

Other notable class-action lawsuits include the $415 million settlement imposed against International Game Technology and its former subsidiary, DoubleDown Interactive, in 2023. In the same year, a Kentucky judge ordered VGW to pay $11.75 million.

The post New York Sweepstakes Casino Ban Awaits Gov’s Signature, Other States Ramp Up Enforcement appeared first on CasinoBeats.