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 BioThe Big Lagoon Rancheria has become the second California tribe to formally oppose the state’s proposed sweepstakes casino ban, breaking ranks with the larger tribal coalition that supports the measure.
In an August 25 letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Tribal Chair Virgil Moorehead asked the committee and the Legislature to “pause consideration of AB 831 to allow additional time for meaningful tribal consultation and consideration of this critical issue.”
The letter warned that the bill threatens tribal sovereignty and self-determination, lacking the unanimous support of California’s Native American tribes.
Moorehead urged that “the Committee and the Legislature should not advance AB 831 until there has been sufficient time for there to be meaningful, government-to-government consultation with all of California’s Indian tribes so that fair alternatives can be explored that both protect consumers and uphold tribal sovereignty.”
The Five Concerns Raised by Big Lagoon Rancheria
Moorhead’s opposition letter raises five reasons why lawmakers should not advance AB 831:
- Lack of Sufficient Consultation and Transparency – The tribe says the bill was gutted and rewritten in the Senate. That transformed it from a technical compact-related issue to a broader prohibition of various forms of gaming. Also, the bill’s sponsors made the amendments without the meaningful government-to-government consultation California owes to tribes, eroding trust.
- Encroachment on Tribal Sovereignty – AB 831’s broad criminalization of online gaming platforms and those “directly or indirectly” involved with them would extend state jurisdiction into Native lands. That undermines both federal and state policies promoting tribal self-determination.
- Economic Harm to Tribes – By banning digital gaming platforms, the bill would eliminate business opportunities for tribes without large casinos. At the same time, it does not offer an alternative. That reduces their ability to diversify economically.
- Fiscal Impacts Uncertain – Due to the gut-and-amend actions, lawmakers have not had sufficient time to thoroughly study the budgetary impact on the state and its tribes.
- Ignored Alternatives – The tribe argues that many potential regulatory or policy alternatives could address concerns without resorting to a blanket prohibition.
Tribes Split Over the Bill
The opposition from Big Lagoon Rancheria comes a week after the Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation of the Cortina Rancheria struck a landmark partnership with Virtual Gaming Worlds (VGW), the parent company of Chumba Casino, LuckyLand Slots, and Global Poker.
The August 19 announcement gave VGW a tribal ally in California. That provided fresh momentum for arguments that AB 831 undermines tribal sovereignty.
The partnership also strengthens the case that sweepstakes casinos can coexist with tribal rights. Big Lagoon’s opposition adds to the argument, particularly for geographically-isolated tribes without land-based casinos, which could economically benefit from social gaming platforms.
Meanwhile, a powerful coalition of over 50 tribes supports AB 831. The California Nations Indian Gaming Association (CNIGA) has been vocal in pressing lawmakers to protect the tribes’ exclusive rights to regulated gambling in the state.
The tribes have also pressed for the prohibition of daily fantasy sports, cardrooms, and prediction markets such as Kalshi.
AB 831 Heads Toward a Key Test
AB 831 creates a blanket prohibition on sweepstakes casinos. It criminalized not only operators but third parties associated with them. They include payment processors and advertisers (including influencers).
The bill has unanimously advanced through the Senate Governmental Organization Committee and the Senate Public Safety Committee.
On August 18, the Senate Appropriations Committee also unanimously advanced AB 831. However, it placed it immediately into the chamber’s Suspense File.
Lawmakers will once again review the proposal in a special “suspense day”, likely on August 29. On that day, the Appropriations Committee will decide whether to advance it or effectively kill it. Lawmakers often use the suspense process to weigh the fiscal impact of controversial bills.
Big Lagoon’s letter stressed the lack of study on the bill’s fiscal impact:
“Because AB 831 was gutted and amended so recently, there has not been sufficient time to study the fiscal impacts of AB 831 on California and its Indian tribes.”
If the bill survives suspense day, it would move to the Senate for a vote.
Lawsuits Loom as Parallel Threat
Even if AB 831 fails to reach the Senate floor, sweepstakes casinos face growing legal pressure in California and across the US. There are about 60 active class-action suits nationwide. California is home to about a dozen.
Sweepstakes operators have scored multiple victories in these types of cases so far. Still, a recent complaint took a different approach, which could increase its chances of success.
On August 20, VGW, its executives, and affiliates, such as influencer Brian Christopher, became defendants in a national class action suit filed in the Northern District of California.
The suit was filed on behalf of VGW customers’ spouses who share bank accounts but never agreed to the company’s terms. That strategy separates this case from others. It aims to avoid arbitration clauses that sweepstakes operators rely on and many courts have sided with.
Plaintiffs seek damages under state loss-recovery statutes that allow secondary parties to recoup gambling losses.
Whether through legislation or litigation, the fight over sweepstakes casinos is becoming one of the defining battles of California’s gambling landscape.
