Chavdar Vasilev is a journalist covering the casino and sports betting market sectors for CasinoBeats. He joined CasinoBeats in May 2025 and reports on industry-shaping stories across the US and beyond, including legislative debates, market...
Read Full BioCalifornia tribal casinos suffered a setback in their ongoing legal fight against cardrooms after a County Court judge tentatively dismissed their lawsuit challenging cardrooms’ “banked” card games.
The tribal casinos sued under Senate Bill 549 (Tribal Nations Access to Justice Act), which enables them to file a complaint in Superior Court to challenge whether cardrooms violate the law by offering these games.
In California, Indian tribes have exclusivity over “banked” card games. These are casino games, such as blackjack and baccarat, where the player plays against the “house”.
However, cardrooms have long skirted the exclusivity provision by using third-party providers, known as Third-Party Proposition Player Services (TPPPS), to act as dealers, falling in compliance with state rules.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta has recently proposed changes to cardroom rules, including removing TPPPS, which he argues would clarify gaming laws and enhance cardroom regulation.
Judge Says IGRA Preempts State Laws
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Lauri Damrell’s tentative ruling stated that the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) preempts the tribes’ state-law claims, even though the cardrooms operate off tribal lands.
Tribal casinos pushed back, calling the ruling misguided as IGRA regulates gaming on tribal lands. Meanwhile, their complaint involves non-tribal, off-reservation gaming. They add that SB 549 was designed to help them legally enforce their exclusivity rights.
The Indian casinos’ attorney, Adam Lauridsen, says Judge Damrell’s ruling would break new legal ground, as IGRA focuses on tribal lands:
“[The act] has not stretched that far and should not stretch that far.”
Cardroom attorneys welcomed the decision, arguing that the tribes want to negotiate compacts under federal law and to sue under state law. They point out that the tribes are protected from similar lawsuits because of sovereign immunity.
“They can’t have it both ways,” said attorney Ben Horwich, representing the cardrooms. “That is why [IGRA] exists.”
California’s Cardroom–Tribal Casino Clash
California’s gambling landscape is shaped by a long-standing tension between tribal casinos and the state’s licensed cardrooms.
The state gave the tribes exclusivity over casino games in 2000. At the same time, it gave cardrooms a compromise through the TPPPS rule. Over time, various laws have expanded the offerings of cardrooms to include blackjack and baccarat.
The tribes have long argued that cardrooms are illegally offering casino games.
In 2016, the tribes sued cardrooms, but the US District Court dismissed their case, ruling that they lacked the necessary sovereignty to bring the lawsuit. Meanwhile, in 2022, the cardrooms sued, challenging a tribe-initiated ballot measure to legalize sports betting.
SB 549, signed into law in 2024, was intended to address the sovereignty issue for the tribes. However, the ruling by Judge Damrell could provide the latest twist in the ongoing battle for card games in California.
Bonta Pushes for Cardroom Rule Changes
Bonta has indicated that clear, enforceable rules regarding cardrooms and TPPPS could reduce the friction and regulatory disputes.
The changes he proposes include that only players seated at the table can act as TPPPS, not third parties. They would need to rotate every 40 minutes and would not be allowed to settle wagers unless they’re occupying the TPPPS seat directly.
Bonta also calls for significant changes to blackjack games offered at cardrooms. That includes:
- Elimination of the “bust” feature, where the player or dealer automatically loses if their score is higher than a certain number.
- Prohibition of the target point count of 21.
- Removal of terms “blackjack” and “21” from the games offered.
- In a “push,” the player would automatically win.
Critics argue that if implemented, the new rules will significantly slow down the pace of the games.
The proposal has met with intense scrutiny. Bonta’s office began holding public meetings to explain the changes and gather feedback. Many stakeholders, including business leaders, local politicians, and cardroom employees, expressed concerns.
Some municipalities, such as Commerce and Bell Gardens, claim cardroom tax revenue accounts for over 50% of their general fund contribution, while Hawaiian Gardens reports a higher figure of 78%.
Tribes Also Suing Kalshi
Cardrooms are not the only legal battle for California tribes.
Last month, the Blue Lake Rancheria, Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, and Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians filed a 71-page complaint against prediction market platform Kalshi and Robinhood, which features Kalshi’s markets on its platform.
The plaintiffs argue that the companies are operating illegal sports betting on tribal lands, violating IGRA and threatening tribal sovereignty.
“Kalshi is engaging in sport gambling as defined by the IGRA and the Tribes’ Compacts, Procedures, and Ordinances. Therefore, the Tribes seek an order from the Court enjoining Kalshi from conducting its illegal sports gambling operation.”
The tribes argue that the platform’s sports event contracts mimic traditional sports betting. By offering them on tribal lands without tribal oversight, Kalshi violates not only IGRA but also tribal sovereignty. Additionally, sports betting is illegal in California.
While the Kalshi case is unrelated to the cardroom dispute, both legal fights underscore the aggressive stance tribes are taking to defend their market share in California’s evolving gambling landscape.
