US Sweepstakes Laws by State
Sweepstakes laws in the United States now differ by state in ways that decide whether a platform can operate at all. This calendar carries eighteen jurisdictions, checked against primary bill text and enforcement announcements, and corrected in the same week any status changes.
Ten states have sweepstakes bans on their books: Montana, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, California, Tennessee, Indiana, Maine, North Carolina (a 2010 law against video sweepstakes) and Oklahoma — the most recent, Oklahoma’s SB 1589, taking effect on 1 November 2026.
Eight further states — Nevada, Washington, West Virginia, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Arizona and Pennsylvania — closed to the model through enforcement, without a ban ever passing.
Every one of those instruments turns on redeemable value. A product that never sells and never redeems sits outside the element each ban was drafted around.
| State | Status | Authority | Effective | What defines it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Montana | Ban | SB 555 | 1 Oct 2025 | Online casinos written into internet gambling; three cumulative conditions |
| Connecticut | Ban | SB 1235 / PA 25-112 | 2025 | Professional-gambling penalty (class A misdemeanour) plus unfair trade practice |
| New Jersey | Ban | A5447 | 15 Aug 2025 | $100k–$250k civil penalties; the $20 limit is on the purchase, not the prize |
| New York | Ban | S5935A / §912 | 5 Dec 2025 | Reaches processors and affiliates; excludes no-prize games |
| California | Ban | AB 831 | 1 Jan 2026 | Supply-chain criminal liability |
| Tennessee | Ban | SB 2136 | 22 May 2026 | Consumer Protection Act enforcement |
| Indiana | Ban | HB 1052 | 1 Jul 2026 | $100k per violation; regulation defeated twice |
| Maine | Ban | LD 2007 | Mid-Jul 2026 | Dual-currency test; consideration includes bonus or promotional tokens |
| North Carolina | Ban | § 14-306.4 | 2010 | Video sweepstakes banned, paid or free entry; never tested on online play |
| Oklahoma | Ban | SB 1589 | 1 Nov 2026 | Veto overridden 14 May 2026, 34–10 and 68–19 |
| Nevada | Enforcement | SB 256 / NRS 463 | 2025 | No sweeps-specific ban; NRS 463 already covers it |
| Washington | Enforcement | Kater / RCW 9.46 | 2018 | Virtual chips are a thing of value; Big Fish paid $155M |
| West Virginia | Enforcement | §61-10-5 | 2025–26 | ~50 AG subpoenas and 20+ platform exits reported (trade press) |
| Louisiana | Enforcement | HB 53 / LGCB | 2025–26 | 40+ C&Ds; $44M suit; racketeering exposure |
| Michigan | Enforcement | MGCB | 2025–26 | Gaming board cease-and-desist campaign; no bill filed |
| Minnesota | Enforcement | AG exit orders | 2025–26 | Market closed before SF 4474 died on 18 May 2026 |
| Arizona | Enforcement | ADG orders | 2025 | Department of Gaming cease-and-desist orders naming sweepstakes operators |
| Pennsylvania | Enforcement | PGCB | 2025 | 18 cease-and-desist letters reported (trade press); no ban bill introduced |
Effective dates and legislative deadlines still to come are kept in date order on the sweepstakes laws calendar — that page changes as the map moves; this one records what each state has already done.
The bills are the smaller half of sweepstakes laws
An operator tracking legislative calendars alone would have logged West Virginia, Michigan and Minnesota as open markets. All three are closed. Attorneys general and gaming boards have removed more market than legislatures have, using consumer-protection statutes and gambling definitions that predate the sweepstakes model by decades — and they do it without a hearing, a vote, or a line in a bill tracker.
Minnesota is the case to study. SF 4474 passed the Senate on 30 April 2026 and died in a House committee when the session adjourned on 18 May, which read in the trade press as a defeat for the ban. The Attorney General had already issued exit orders. Nothing changed on 18 May because nothing was left to change.
The visible half moves slowly and announces itself. The other half arrives as a subpoena.
What every one of these statutes has in common
Each of the nine bans turns on redeemable value. Montana attaches liability to monetary-equivalent payouts. New Jersey defines the sweepstakes by the exchange of currency for a prize. New York’s Section 912 defines the banned game by three things that must all be present: it is online, it runs a dual-currency system of payment exchangeable for cash, and it simulates casino-style gaming. Maine’s Chapter 38 uses the same shape but defines its currency element more broadly, and how far it reaches a non-redeemable model is unsettled. Nevada does not regulate social games where no prizes are awarded.
Remove redemption and the element the statutes were drafted to catch is not present. That is not a loophole — it is the distinction the legislatures themselves drew, repeatedly, in public, in the text.
Washington is the exception, and it is the constraint that governs everything else. Under Kater, a virtual chip that cannot be redeemed for anything is still a thing of value if the player bought it. Big Fish paid $155 million for that reading. The sale is the trigger — which is why nothing on this platform is ever sold.
Questions about US sweepstakes laws
Are sweepstakes casinos legal in the US?
It depends entirely on the state and on the product. Ten states have enacted bans and eight more have closed through enforcement, but every one of those instruments turns on prizes with redeemable value. A game that awards nothing redeemable is outside all of them, which several of the statutes say in terms.
Which states have banned sweepstakes casinos?
Montana, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, California, Tennessee, Indiana, Maine, North Carolina (a 2010 law against video sweepstakes) and Oklahoma have enacted bans. Each took effect on the date shown in the matrix above; Oklahoma’s SB 1589 takes effect on 1 November 2026.
What makes a sweepstakes casino illegal under these laws?
Redeemable value, in almost every case. The statutes attach to prizes that can be converted to cash or cash equivalents. Maine is the variant worth knowing: it reaches indirect consideration, meaning the purchase of a Gold Coin bundle rather than the redemption at the other end.
What is the difference between a ban state and an enforcement state?
A ban state passed a statute naming the model. An enforcement state closed its market using laws that already existed — attorney-general subpoenas, gaming-board cease-and-desist orders, or litigation. The outcome for an operator is the same; the warning time is not. Enforcement produces no bill to track and no effective date to plan against.
Can a state close its sweepstakes market without passing a law?
Yes, and eight have. West Virginia never filed a bill and cleared its market with roughly fifty subpoenas. That is why sweepstakes laws by state are only half the map — the enforcement half moves faster and announces nothing.