The ultimate guide to social casinos

In recent times, a lot of states in the US have initiated bans for sweepstakes casino platforms. While some states' bill proposals are still ongoing, some have already been rejected. We take a look at bills that are still active and find out what's happening with these bills in some key states, like New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and more.

In a year marked by legislative scrutiny of online sweepstakes platforms, US state lawmakers have introduced a wave of bills seeking to regulate or ban these dual-currency gaming operators. While several proposals have failed to gain traction and died in session, others remain active and are advancing through statehouses.

The legislative movement stems from concerns around the legality, consumer protections, and perceived overlap between sweepstakes models and online gambling. However, recent trends show growing resistance to sweeping bans, particularly in states prioritizing innovation and economic freedom.

Early setbacks in the south and mid-Atlantic

Some states took swift action early in the legislative year, only to see efforts fizzle amid wider gaming debates. In Mississippi, for example, the Senate passed a bill banning sweepstakes operators. Yet the measure was ultimately derailed in a conference committee, tangled in the state's larger conversation around expanding online sports betting.

Similarly, Florida's attempt to prohibit sweepstakes platforms ended in quiet withdrawal earlier this month. That move was welcomed by industry advocates like the Social and Promotional Games Association. "The defeat of these bills continues a clear national trend," said an SPGA spokesperson. "Lawmakers across the country are rejecting these anti-innovation, anti-business efforts that attempt to dictate what games American adults can play on their phones."

The spokesperson also pointed to Maryland and Arkansas, where similar legislation failed to pass, indicating growing skepticism toward restrictive bills.

A state-by-state look: where the action continues

Despite setbacks in some regions, several states still have active legislation that could reshape the landscape for online sweepstakes platforms.

Connecticut: Senate yet to vote

In Connecticut, SB 1235 was introduced in February to prohibit both real and simulated online casino gaming or sports betting conducted via sweepstakes platforms. The bill has cleared several committee hurdles and is now awaiting a vote on the Senate floor. With the state's legislative session running until June 4, there is still time for further movement.

Louisiana: unanimous Senate support

Louisiana has made notable progress. The Senate passed SB 181 with a unanimous 39 - 0 vote. This bill seeks to expand the definition of 'gambling by computer' to include sweepstakes operators using dual-currency systems. It now moves to the House Committee on Administration of Criminal Justice. The legislative session continues until June 12, giving proponents a narrow window to finalize the bill.

New Jersey: slow but active

In New Jersey, Assembly Bill 5447 gained momentum after a dormant period. The Assembly's Tourism, Gaming and Arts Committee advanced the measure last week. A5447 targets platforms offering virtual currencies that yield real cash prizes, and it still requires approval from additional committees. Given the legislature remains in session until December 31, lawmakers have time to refine and debate the proposal.

New York: Addabbo's bill advances

New York legislators have also taken a strong interest. Senate Bill S5935, led by gaming advocate Sen. Joseph Addabbo, has already reached the Senate floor. A companion House bill, AB6745, remains in committee. Addabbo's bill includes an amendment granting the New York State Gaming Commission more authority to define what constitutes a sweepstakes system - potentially allowing for nuanced regulation over outright bans. New York's session ends on June 12.

Montana: awaiting the signature of the Governor

In Montana, lawmakers have already passed SB555, sending it to Governor Greg Gianforte's desk for approval. The bill avoids using the term 'sweepstakes' directly but amends gambling definitions to include any platform that transmits gambling information and allows wagers or payouts in any currency. Notably, it preserves legal standing for free-to-play casino models.

A mixed national picture

As legislative sessions near their end in several states, the fate of online sweepstakes bills remains uncertain. While many proposals have stalled or died, active measures in states like Louisiana, Connecticut, and New York suggest the debate is far from over.

Industry advocates continue to push back against what they see as restrictive, anti-consumer laws. Meanwhile, state lawmakers are weighing how best to regulate a fast-evolving digital gaming sector without stifling innovation. The next few weeks will be critical in determining which states move toward prohibition - and which choose a more measured regulatory path.

Popular Scandinavian gaming provider Play'n GO has vowed never to supply its games to sweepstakes casinos, and it further confirms its commitment to promoting only regulated and licensed gaming markets worldwide.

Swedish gaming powerhouse Play'n GO has made a strong and definitive statement regarding its business practices, as it vows never to supply its industry-leading portfolio of casino games to sweepstakes casinos. Johan Törnqvist, the company's Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder, made the declaration, further demonstrating Play'n GO's unwavering commitment to operating strictly within regulated and licensed gaming markets worldwide.

"Sweepstakes casinos do not operate inside a regulated framework, and that's not something we support," said Törnqvist. "Our commitment to regulated markets is absolute. We will never supply our games to sweepstakes casinos."

The ever-growing regulatory scrutiny on sweepstakes casinos

Sweepstakes casinos, often operating in legal grey areas by circumventing gambling laws through promotional and virtual currency models, have come under increasing scrutiny - especially across the United States. These platforms operate outside conventional regulatory frameworks, raising serious concerns among policymakers, regulators, and responsible gaming advocates.

Shawn Fluharty, Play'n GO's Head of Government Affairs, voiced strong opposition to these unregulated entities. "Sweepstakes casinos threaten the regulated market model that many of us in the industry have worked so hard to achieve," he said. "That model protects players first and foremost and delivers much-needed revenue to jurisdictions."

Fluharty further warned of long-term consequences for businesses engaging with unregulated markets: "Regulators have long memories. Anyone doing business with sweepstakes casinos today will find it very difficult to do business in a future regulated market."

A history of ethical leadership

This announcement is consistent with Play'n GO's longstanding position as a responsible and forward-thinking industry leader. The company has repeatedly taken proactive steps to align with evolving regulatory standards and promote industry integrity.

For instance, Play'n GO was notably the first supplier to rule out the production of 'bonus buy' games - game titles that allow players to purchase features directly - long before such games were officially banned by Dutch and UK regulators. This stand has since become a benchmark in regulatory compliance and ethical game design, as several other jurisdictions consider similar restrictions.

Backed by industry partners and policy advocates

The company's recent strategic partnership with Tipico, a major German casino operator, demonstrates Play'n GO's commitment to clean, regulated markets. Through this alliance and partnership, Tipico has chosen to prioritize Play'n GO's games on its platforms while removing titles from providers that operate in both regulated and black markets.

Chief Commercial Officer at Play'n GO, Magnus Olsson, acknowledged the financial implications of such decisions but emphasized the importance of long-term integrity. "It's no secret that with this decision - much like with our stance towards Bonus Buy games - we have been, and continue to leave a lot of money on the table," said Olsson.

"But everyone in the industry has a choice about what kind of industry we want. We want to see a fully regulated and sustainable industry that protects players, promotes innovation, and ensures that we actually have an industry in the future."

A call to action for industry peers

Play'n GO's bold move serves as both a commitment and a challenge to others in the gaming industry. With increasing momentum toward tighter regulation and more ethical business models, the company is urging fellow suppliers and operators to take a stand for sustainability and player protection.

"We are starting to see both regulators and operators, such as with Tipico in Germany, recognize that the future of the industry is through regulation," said Olsson. "It's time for other suppliers to do their part too - and I'm delighted to see Play'n GO leading the way once again."

Sweepstakes casino operators continue to take a hit in the US as more and more states seek to prohibit their operations - and this now includes a lawsuit involving VGW, the entity behind sweepstakes casinos like Chumba Casino, Luckyland, and Global Poker. In the lawsuit, a third defendant was brought in last month: Ryan Seacrest, the popular American Idol emcee and TV personality, who is also a Chumba Casino spokesperson.

A popular California sweepstakes operator is facing heightened legal scrutiny - this time with a celebrity twist. Television host and personality Ryan Seacrest has been named as a defendant in an amended lawsuit against VGW, the parent company of well-known sweepstakes sites including Chumba Casino, Luckyland Casino, and Global Poker.

The lawsuit, brought by California resident Aubrey Carillo, was originally recorded in October of 2024 in Riverside County Superior Court. Initially focused solely on VGW, the suit was revised last month to include Seacrest, who serves as a prominent spokesperson for Chumba Casino. The revised complaint significantly expanded in scope, growing from 16 to 71 pages, and deepened its legal arguments against both the operator and its celebrity endorser.

Suit alleges illegal gambling under state law

At the core of Carillo's claim is the allegation that VGW's sweepstakes-based gaming products operate as illicit online casinos within the state of California. The lawsuit draws a direct comparison between VGW's platforms and the internet cafes that proliferated in the early 2000s. These cafes offered phone cards or paid internet access along with bonus credits that could be used to play slot-like games - a model that California lawmakers later deemed unlawful gambling.

Carillo argues that the model used by VGW's platforms is functionally identical, contending that the purchase of virtual currency or other entry methods does not eliminate the element of 'consideration,' a key component in determining what constitutes gambling under state law. The complaint claims VGW has effectively revived the outlawed business model in digital form.

Celebrity endorsement draws fire

The revised complaint singles out Ryan Seacrest for allegedly helping to legitimize and promote an unlawful business through his celebrity endorsement. In a pointed statement within the filing, Carillo accuses Seacrest of leveraging his fame irresponsibly:

"Someone this blessed in life does not need to hurt people for more money, but Defendant Seacrest does that by serving as the official celebrity endorser for ChumbaCasino.com. Defendant Seacrest promotes illegal gambling and in so doing, contributes to the rise of online gambling addiction among adults and adolescents."

The suit claims that Seacrest's influence and promotion of Chumba Casino contribute to a growing trend of online gambling addiction, particularly among vulnerable populations.

Challenge to binding arbitration

In addition to targeting VGW and Seacrest, the lawsuit disputes the enforceability of the sites' terms and conditions - specifically, their use of mandatory arbitration clauses. Carillo argues that because the underlying business model is potentially illegal, the user agreements and any clauses within them, including arbitration, are therefore unenforceable - and void - under California law.

This aspect of the suit could have wider implications as mandatory arbitration is a common legal shield for many online platforms facing user complaints.

Part of a legal trend

While Seacrest is the very first celebrity to be named in such a lawsuit, he is not the first third party to be pulled into the growing legal battles surrounding sweepstakes gaming platforms. Other ongoing lawsuits have targeted payment processors like Worldpay and major technology companies such as Google and Apple, alleging that these firms facilitate access to illegal gambling. To date, no court has issued a final ruling holding these companies liable. However, most cases - including Carillo's - remain active and could set significant legal precedents in the coming months.

As the pressure mounts, the outcome of this lawsuit may influence how sweepstakes-based gaming is treated nationwide - and it could also determine the liability of public figures and tech platforms involved in their promotion.