Sweepstakes casinos run on a state-by-state legal grid, and the July 2026 map has hardened fast: 8 states now enforce hard statutory bans on the dual-currency model, 1 more is enacted for later in the year, and a separate cluster of states pushes operators out through pre-existing gambling law or new enforcement powers. California, Connecticut, Indiana, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, New York, and Tennessee are the 8 hard bans in force. Oklahoma (November 1) joins them by year-end, bringing the enacted total to 9. Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Iowa, Michigan, and Louisiana restrict or exclude operators through enforcement rather than a dedicated sweepstakes statute – Louisiana’s own ban bill was vetoed, but a 2025 attorney-general opinion and Gaming Control Board enforcement already pushed operators out. Everywhere else – about 34 states – the dual-currency Gold Coin / Sweeps Coin model is open and operating. We pulled each operator’s published geo-restriction list, traced the statutory citations, and cross-checked the regulatory-action docket through mid-July 2026. The matrix below is the working snapshot for travel, account creation, and redemption decisions this quarter. None of it is legal advice.
Key Takeaways
- 8 hard statutory bans in force (August 2026): California, Connecticut, Indiana, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, New York, and Tennessee. One more is enacted for later in 2026 – Oklahoma (Nov 1) – for 9 by year-end.
- Enforcement-only states: Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Iowa, Michigan, and Louisiana restrict or push out operators under pre-existing gambling law, a state attorney-general opinion, or cease-and-desist authority, not a dedicated sweepstakes ban. Louisiana’s own ban bill (SB 181) was vetoed, but its regulator has already forced operators out. Maryland’s ban bills failed – it is not banned.
- About 34 states still allow the dual-currency model with no ban. Stake.us, Chumba, Pulsz, McLuck, and Wow Vegas operate across most of this footprint.
- Travel is allowed. Geolocation enforcement runs on the device-of-access, not on residency. Briefly crossing into a banned or off-limits state will lock access for the duration; returning to a permissive state restores it. Accounts are not suspended.
- 1 SC = US$1 at redemption. Operators issue IRS Form 1099-MISC (Box 3, prize income) once annual redemptions reach US$2,000 – raised from $600 by the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act – regardless of the state in which the SC was earned.
- 2027 outlook: bills are pending in Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Hawaii. The California AB 831 template is the most likely model for further statutory bans.
- Editorial independence & advertising disclosure: Tech Insider may earn a commission when you sign up through links on this page. Our rankings and assessments are made independently and are never sold.
Don't miss new tech stories on Google
Add Tech Insider once in the Google app and our stories appear in your news suggestions.
The August 2026 Map: 8 Hard Bans, 9 by Year-End
Updated July 17, 2026: The biggest sweepstakes-casino story is that state bans are accelerating. Indiana’s ban took effect July 1 and Maine’s in mid-July, joining California, Connecticut, Montana, New Jersey, New York, and Tennessee as hard statutory bans in force. Oklahoma (November 1) is enacted and pending, which would bring the total to 9 by year-end. Separately, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Iowa, Michigan, and Louisiana push operators out through enforcement rather than a dedicated statute – Louisiana’s own ban bill was vetoed, but a 2025 attorney-general opinion and Gaming Control Board enforcement already keep operators out. The once “50-state” market is shrinking as lawmakers treat dual-currency platforms more like illegal gambling than promotions.
The cleanest way to read the US sweepstakes-casino grid this quarter is by tier. Eight states – California, Connecticut, Indiana, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, New York, and Tennessee – enforce dedicated statutory bans on the dual-currency model that are in force right now. One more, Oklahoma, has a signed ban that takes effect on November 1, 2026, which pushes the enacted total to 9 by year-end. Each of these bans traces to a specific bill passed during the 2025–2026 legislative wave, and none is likely to be repealed during the rest of 2026.
A second cluster of states keeps operators out without a sweepstakes-specific statute. Washington, Idaho, and Nevada have excluded the model for years under broad pre-existing gambling law or a standing regulator position. Iowa handed its Racing and Gaming Commission cease-and-desist authority in mid-2026. Michigan sits in a partial-availability posture after a 2023–2024 enforcement push and a limited 2024 reopen. Mississippi has an open attorney-general inquiry that has prompted some operators to self-exclude. Louisiana belongs in this cluster too: its legislature passed a statutory ban (SB 181), but Governor Jeff Landry vetoed it, and the state now treats dual-currency sweepstakes as illegal through a 2025 attorney-general opinion and Gaming Control Board cease-and-desist actions that pushed the major operators out in mid-2025. In these states, availability is driven by enforcement and operator caution rather than a clean statutory line, and the brand-by-brand list changes more often than elsewhere.
Everywhere else – about 34 states – the model operates openly. Players in Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Illinois, North Carolina, Virginia, Arizona, and Massachusetts can open accounts, purchase Gold Coin packs, complete KYC, and redeem Sweeps Coins through the same checkout flow as any consumer fintech product. The legal hook is the no-purchase-necessary doctrine documented across decades of state sweepstakes case law. The structural mechanics are covered in our companion piece on how sweepstakes casinos work, and the federal-law layer is covered in our legality overview.
Why the Ban Map Is Still Moving in 2026
The eight hard bans are settled law for 2026: each rests on a statute already passed and in force, and none faces a repeal effort this session. The movement is at the edges. Oklahoma flips on its scheduled effective date. The enforcement tier – Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Iowa, Michigan, and Louisiana – can shift quickly, because a single court order, settlement, or regulator letter moves a state without any new statute. And the open footprint keeps drifting, because states that were permissive two years ago – California, New Jersey, New York, Indiana – have already moved into the banned column, and more bills are in committee. The right posture is to treat the current map as a snapshot, not a fixed boundary.
What “Permissive” Actually Means
A permissive state is one that has no specific statute or active enforcement action targeting dual-currency sweepstakes casinos. It does not mean the state has affirmatively blessed the model. It means the state’s gambling code does not capture the no-consideration sweepstakes structure, and no public-facing AG or gaming-commission action has put operators on notice. Players in permissive states can open accounts, buy Gold Coins, and redeem SC without geo-blocking. Tax obligations and KYC requirements apply uniformly across permissive states. The phrase is administrative shorthand, not a legal endorsement.
Methodology and Operator Geo-Restriction Sources
The matrix in this article was built from four data sources. First, the published terms-of-service and sweepstakes-rules pages for Stake.us, Chumba Casino, Pulsz, McLuck, and Wow Vegas. Every major operator publishes an explicit list of excluded states inside its sweepstakes rules. We pulled the lists from each brand in early July 2026 and cross-checked them in mid-July. Second, the state-legislative websites for any state with a sweepstakes-specific bill in committee or signed during 2025 or 2026. Third, the regulatory-action docket maintained by each state gaming commission or attorney general where applicable. Fourth, state attorney-general filings and adjacent enforcement matters.
The reason this article relies on operator-published geo-restriction lists rather than on a uniform legal analysis is that the operators themselves do the legal work and bake it into their terms. A state with ambiguous code that no operator serves is functionally banned for any player, regardless of how a lawyer might score the statute. A state with permissive code where every operator serves is functionally legal, regardless of whether the state has a sweepstakes-specific statute. The operators’ compliance posture is the most reliable indicator of where the practical line sits at any given moment.
Three Sources for Each State
Every row in the 50-state table draws on at least three independent sources: a statutory citation or AG opinion where available, the operator geo-restriction lists for the five brands, and the most recent regulatory action recorded in the public docket. Where these sources disagree, we default to the operator restriction list as the operating reality. Where statute and operator agree, the row is high-confidence. Where the only signal is operator restriction with no statutory basis, the row is marked as enforcement-driven rather than statute-driven. Reading the “legal basis” column tells you how durable the entry is.
Cross-Vertical Benchmark
The state-by-state pattern for sweepstakes casinos is the mirror image of the pattern for CFTC-regulated prediction markets, which we mapped in prediction markets by state. Prediction markets are nationally available under a federal-license framework with a small number of contested-by-state-AG entries. Sweepstakes casinos have no federal regulator, so the state-by-state grid is the only operating map. The two verticals overlap where states like Connecticut and Nevada have positioned themselves as restrictive across multiple online-gambling-adjacent product categories. Reading both grids together makes the broader gambling-regulation picture clearer than reading either alone.
Operator Specs: Five US-Facing Brands Compared
The five operators most commonly referenced when discussing state availability are Stake.us, Chumba Casino, Pulsz, McLuck, and Wow Vegas. They collectively cover the bulk of US sweepstakes-casino activity by published revenue and player count, and their geo-restriction lists are the practical input to the state matrix. The specs table below summarizes the operator characteristics that bear on state availability: corporate parent, currency model, minimum redemption, current state exclusion count, and KYC posture.
| Spec | Stake.us | Chumba | Pulsz | McLuck | Wow Vegas |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corporate parent | Sweepstakes Limited | VGW Holdings | Yellow Social Interactive | B-Two Operations | Wow Vegas Entertainment |
| Launch year (US) | 2022 | 2017 | 2020 | 2023 | 2023 |
| Game count | 700+ | 120+ | 800+ | 650+ | 600+ |
| Minimum redemption | ~40–50 SC (crypto, variable) | 100 SC | 100 SC (10 SC gift card) | 50–75 SC | 100 SC (25 SC gift card) |
| Excluded states (August 2026) | WA, ID, NV, IA, MI, LA, CA, CT, IN, ME, MT, NJ, NY, TN, KY, VT | WA, ID, NV, IA, MI, LA, CA, CT, IN, ME, MT, NJ, NY, TN | WA, ID, NV, IA, MI, LA, CA, CT, IN, ME, MT, NJ, NY, TN | WA, ID, NV, IA, MI, LA, CA, CT, IN, ME, MT, NJ, NY, TN | WA, ID, NV, IA, MI, LA, CA, CT, IN, ME, MT, NJ, NY, TN |
| State exclusion count | 16 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 |
| KYC trigger | First redemption | First redemption | First redemption | First redemption | First redemption |
| KYC documents | Gov ID, SSN-4, proof of address | Gov ID, SSN-4, proof of address | Gov ID, SSN-4, proof of address | Gov ID, SSN-4, proof of address | Gov ID, SSN-4, proof of address |
| Geolocation method | IP + GPS at session | IP at signup | IP + browser geo | IP at signup | IP at session |
| Postcard SC value (operator-stated, varies) | 5 SC per card | 2 SC per card | 1–5 SC per card | 3 SC per card | 2 SC per card |
| 1099-MISC threshold | US$2,000+ annual | US$2,000+ annual | US$2,000+ annual | US$2,000+ annual | US$2,000+ annual |
| Redemption rails | ACH, BTC, USDC | ACH, Skrill, check | ACH, check | ACH, check | ACH, check |
The most important row in that table is the excluded-states row. Stake.us has the longest list (16 states), in part because its posture has been more aggressive about preemptive self-exclusion since state enforcement stepped up in 2024–25. Chumba, Pulsz, McLuck, and Wow Vegas each exclude 14 states. The overlap is near-total: every operator excludes Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Iowa, Michigan, Louisiana, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, New York, and Tennessee. Stake.us additionally excludes Kentucky and Vermont, where it has chosen to stay out ahead of any statute.
Why Operator Lists Don’t Always Match Statute
An operator’s decision to exclude a state can run ahead of the statutory position. Stake.us excludes Kentucky and Vermont even though neither has a sweepstakes-specific ban, because both have signaled regulatory intent that the company chose to respect. That gap between statutory text and operator behavior is normal in the consumer-fintech compliance space, and it explains why some entries in the matrix below show a brand-by-brand split. The right question for a player is which brands serve their state, not only which states are technically legal under the statute.
The Economics Behind the Operator Lists
The category does not publish standardized per-user revenue, and independent estimates are thin and inconsistent, so we avoid putting a hard dollar figure on any single state. The directional point still holds: mid-sized states matter to operator profit-and-loss out of proportion to their population, because a ban removes a whole cohort of paying users at once rather than gradually. That is why operators fought the 2025 statutes in Connecticut and Montana, and why they have been heavily engaged with state legislatures elsewhere to slow the ban wave. When a state passes an AB 831-style law, operators lose that market entirely rather than partially, which is a sharper revenue event than the margin pressure seen in most consumer categories.
The 50-State Legality Matrix (August 2026)
The table below covers all 50 US states. Status uses three values: Legal, Restricted, Banned. The legal-basis column cites the controlling statute, AG opinion, or regulator position. The operator-availability column lists which of the five reference brands (Stake.us, Chumba, Pulsz, McLuck, Wow Vegas) currently serve the state. “All 5” means every reference brand accepts the state. “None” means none do. Partial means at least one but not all. The last column captures the most recent regulatory action of note as of August 2026.
| State | Status | Legal basis | Operator availability | Most recent action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Legal | No sweepstakes-specific statute | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| Alaska | Legal | AS 11.66 (gambling code, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| Arizona | Legal | ARS 13-3301 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| Arkansas | Legal | No sweepstakes-specific statute | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| California | Banned | AB 831, in force since Jan 1, 2026 | None | Statutory ban in force |
| Colorado | Legal | CRS 18-10 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| Connecticut | Banned | SB 1235 (2025), effective Oct 1, 2025 | None | Statutory ban in force |
| Delaware | Legal | Title 11 Ch 14 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| Florida | Legal | FL Stat. Ch 849 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| Georgia | Legal | OCGA 16-12-20 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| Hawaii | Legal | HRS 712-1220 (gambling, no SC capture) | Partial (4 of 5) | 2026 bill in committee |
| Idaho | Restricted | Idaho Code 18-3801 (pre-existing gambling law; enforcement, not a sweeps ban) | None | Long-standing exclusion |
| Illinois | Legal | 720 ILCS 5/28 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| Indiana | Banned | HB 1052, in force since Jul 1, 2026 | None | Statutory ban in force |
| Iowa | Restricted | SF 2289 (2026): cease-and-desist authority (enforcement, not a ban) | None | C&D authority eff. Jul 1, 2026 |
| Kansas | Legal | KSA 21-6403 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| Kentucky | Legal | KRS 528 (gambling); Stake.us self-excludes | Partial (4 of 5) | Brand-level self-exclusion |
| Louisiana | Restricted | LA AG opinion (2025) + Gaming Control Board enforcement (ban bill SB 181 vetoed; not a sweeps statute) | None | Operators exited mid-2025 |
| Maine | Banned | LD 2007, in force since mid-Jul 2026 | None | Statutory ban in force |
| Maryland | Legal | No sweepstakes-specific statute (2025–26 ban bills failed) | Partial (4 of 5) | Ban bills died in committee |
| Massachusetts | Legal | MGL Ch 271 (gambling); AG inquiry ongoing | All 5 | AG inquiry 2025–26 |
| Michigan | Restricted | MGCB enforcement letters 2023–24, partial reopen 2024 | Partial (limited) | Post-2024 partial reopen |
| Minnesota | Legal | Minn Stat 609.75 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| Mississippi | Restricted | MS Code 75-76 (gambling); AG inquiry, no statute | Partial | AG inquiry 2026 |
| Missouri | Legal | RSMo 572 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| Montana | Banned | SB 555 (2025), effective Oct 1, 2025 | None | Statutory ban in force |
| Nebraska | Legal | Neb Rev Stat 28-1101 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| Nevada | Restricted | NV Gaming Control Board position; NRS 463 (enforcement, not a sweeps ban) | None | Long-standing exclusion |
| New Hampshire | Legal | RSA 647 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| New Jersey | Banned | A5447 (2025), immediate effect | None | Statutory ban in force |
| New Mexico | Legal | NMSA 30-19 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| New York | Banned | S5935A / Ch. 605, effective Dec 5, 2025 | None | Statutory ban in force |
| North Carolina | Legal | NCGS Ch 14 Art 37 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| North Dakota | Legal | NDCC 12.1-28 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| Ohio | Legal | ORC Ch 2915 (gambling); 2026 bill in committee | All 5 | HB pending |
| Oklahoma | Banned (eff. Nov 1, 2026) | SB 1589 (veto override, 2026), effective Nov 1, 2026 | Winding down | Operators winding down |
| Oregon | Legal | ORS 167.117 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| Pennsylvania | Legal | 18 Pa CS Ch 55 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | 2026 bill in committee |
| Rhode Island | Legal | RIGL 11-19 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| South Carolina | Legal | SC Code 16-19 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| South Dakota | Legal | SDCL 22-25 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| Tennessee | Banned | SB 2136 (2026), immediate effect | None | Statutory ban in force |
| Texas | Legal | Tex Penal Code Ch 47 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| Utah | Legal | UCA 76-10-1101 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| Vermont | Legal | 13 VSA 2143 (gambling); Stake.us self-excludes | Partial (4 of 5) | Brand-level self-exclusion |
| Virginia | Legal | Va Code 18.2-325 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| Washington | Restricted | RCW 9.46.0237 (pre-existing gambling law; enforcement, not a sweeps ban) | None | Long-standing exclusion |
| West Virginia | Legal | WV Code 61-10 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| Wisconsin | Legal | Wis Stat 945 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
| Wyoming | Legal | WY Stat 6-7-101 (gambling, no SC capture) | All 5 | None (August 2026) |
A handful of rows carry nuance the status column cannot fully hold. The eight hard-ban states – California, Connecticut, Indiana, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, New York, and Tennessee – are off-limits under dedicated 2025–2026 statutes. Oklahoma is enacted but not yet in force; its ban takes effect on November 1, 2026, and operators are winding that market down now. Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Iowa, Michigan, and Louisiana are marked Restricted rather than Banned because operators are pushed out through pre-existing gambling law, a state attorney-general opinion, or new enforcement authority, not a sweepstakes-specific ban – Louisiana’s own ban bill (SB 181) was vetoed, but its 2025 AG opinion and Gaming Control Board enforcement already emptied the market. Maryland stays in the Legal column: its 2025 and 2026 ban bills died in committee.
The Enforcement-Only States: Washington, Idaho, Nevada
Washington is the cleanest entry on the excluded list because the statutory citation is explicit. RCW 9.46.0237 defines gambling as “staking or risking something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the person’s control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.” The Washington State Gambling Commission has consistently read that definition to include the dual-currency model, regardless of how the AMOE is structured. This is enforcement under a pre-existing gambling statute, not a sweepstakes-specific ban. The state criminalizes participation in online gambling as a Class C felony in most cases, which is unusual nationally. Every operator has excluded Washington since launch.
Idaho works through a broader gambling-code path. Idaho Code 18-3801 captures any “risking any money, credit, deposit or other thing of value for gain contingent in whole or in part upon lot, chance, the operation of a gambling device or the happening or outcome of an event.” The Idaho Attorney General has historically read that statute to capture online sweepstakes mechanics where cash redemption is the endpoint. There has been no Idaho-specific bill targeting sweepstakes casinos because the existing gambling code is read broadly enough. The operator response is identical to Washington: blanket exclusion since the modern category emerged.
Nevada: The Regulator-Led Exclusion
Nevada is the most counter-intuitive entry on the excluded list. The state has the most permissive land-based gambling regime in the country, and yet the Nevada Gaming Control Board has communicated a consistent private-channel position since the early 2020s that the dual-currency model requires NRS 463 licensure. No operator has been willing to litigate the position, partly because the cost of losing – permanent expulsion from Nevada plus reputational damage with the most respected gaming regulator in the country – outweighs the upside of winning. Nevada is the hardest enforcement entry because the regulator’s position is grounded in protecting the licensed market rather than in any concern about the sweepstakes mechanic itself. It is enforcement under existing licensing law, not a dedicated sweepstakes ban.
Player Exposure in Washington, Idaho, and Nevada
The criminal exposure for an individual player who attempts to access a sweepstakes casino from inside Washington, Idaho, or Nevada is technically real but practically minimal. None of the three states has prosecuted a casual player for accessing an online sweepstakes site. Enforcement attention targets operators. The realistic worst case for a player is account termination, balance forfeiture under the terms-of-service force-majeure clause, and a flag that prevents account reopening at the same brand. The bigger risk is taking that account history into a state-licensed iGaming application later, where any prior unlicensed-gambling activity can prompt additional scrutiny.
Enforcement States and the Earliest Statutory Bans
Michigan was the original restricted state and remains the trickiest entry on the map. The Michigan Gaming Control Board sent cease-and-desist letters to the major sweepstakes-casino operators beginning in early 2023, arguing that the dual-currency model required licensure under Michigan’s Lawful Internet Gaming Act. Most operators withdrew during 2023–2024 rather than litigate. Mid-2024 brought a partial reopen: a handful of smaller operators returned with revised terms-of-service language and reduced promotional intensity, while the largest brands (Stake.us, Chumba, Pulsz, McLuck, Wow Vegas) remained excluded. The current Michigan map is a patchwork. Players inside the state can find some operator presence, but not the reference five, and the geo-restriction lists change quarterly.
Iowa joined this enforcement tier in mid-2026. SF 2289 gave the state Racing and Gaming Commission cease-and-desist authority effective July 1, 2026. That is an enforcement empowerment rather than a dedicated dual-currency ban, but the practical effect is the same: operators have pulled back rather than test the new authority, and the reference brands treat Iowa as off-limits. The distinction matters for durability, because an enforcement power can be applied unevenly or narrowed in a way a clean statutory ban cannot.
Mississippi has been on the watch list throughout 2025 and into 2026. The Mississippi Gaming Commission and the state attorney general both opened parallel inquiries in 2024 into whether the dual-currency model captures under MS Code 75-76 (the state’s commercial gambling code). The inquiries have not produced a statute, a settlement, or a public enforcement action through mid-2026, but they have prompted several operators to self-exclude pending resolution. Pulsz and Wow Vegas continue to serve Mississippi as of August 2026. Stake.us self-excluded in early 2026 pending the inquiry. The state is the clearest example of how an active probe can move a market from permissive into partial-availability without any statute change.
Connecticut: The 2025 Statute
Connecticut passed SB 1235 in 2025, effective October 1, 2025, amending the state’s existing gambling code to capture dual-currency sweepstakes models. The Connecticut General Assembly action followed a Department of Consumer Protection advisory that had treated the model as unlicensed gambling for several years. The 2025 statute formalized the position, set civil penalties, and required existing operators to wind down. All five reference brands had exited before the start of 2026, and the matrix now shows Connecticut as a hard ban in force.
Montana: The First State to Ban
Montana’s SB 555, effective October 1, 2025, amended MCA Title 23 Chapter 5 to add a definition of “online sweepstakes gambling” that captures the dual-currency model – the first dedicated dual-currency ban in the country. The legislative process was driven by the state’s licensed video-gambling-machine industry, which lobbied for protection against online competitors. Operators exited during the second half of 2025, and the matrix shows Montana as a hard ban in force. Because the statute relies on enumeration of mechanics, some analysts note a future operator could in principle design around it, but none has tried.
California AB 831 and the 2025–2026 Statutory Wave
California is the single most consequential state-level shift to hit the category in its modern era. Assembly Bill 831 took effect January 1, 2026 and made it unlawful to “operate, offer, conduct, market, promote, or otherwise make available within California any online sweepstakes game” using a dual-currency mechanic to award cash-redeemable prizes. The definition was written to capture the Gold Coin / Sweeps Coin model as a single category regardless of AMOE design. The bill empowers the California Attorney General and local prosecutors to pursue civil and criminal penalties against operators that continue to serve the state. Every reference operator geo-restricted California IPs before December 31, 2025 and gave existing players a 90-day window to redeem outstanding SC balances under prior availability terms.
New Jersey’s 2025 ban took the same structural approach. New Jersey has the deepest licensed iGaming market in the country, and the existing operators of that market (DraftKings, BetMGM, Caesars, FanDuel, etc.) had been arguing for years that the dual-currency model was an unlicensed competitor. The 2025 bill (A5447) was the legislative resolution of that argument. Operators exited the state during the back half of 2025. Combined, California and New Jersey are home to tens of millions of adults and represented a large share of the category’s addressable market. Their removal from the open footprint is the single largest structural change the category has absorbed.
New York, Tennessee, Maine, and the Rest of the Wave
The wave did not stop with California and New Jersey. New York enacted S5935A (Chapter 605) in December 2025, banning the dual-currency model outright. Tennessee followed with SB 2136 in 2026, which took immediate effect. Maine’s LD 2007 came into force in mid-July 2026, and Indiana’s HB 1052 on July 1. Connecticut and Montana had already passed the earliest statutes, effective October 1, 2025. Taken together, that is eight hard bans in force by mid-July 2026, each built on the same definition-led approach that treats Gold Coin / Sweeps Coin play as gambling regardless of the free-entry path.
Oklahoma’s Scheduled Ban and Louisiana’s Enforcement Route
Oklahoma joins the prohibited column on a scheduled date. Oklahoma’s SB 1589 – passed over a veto in spring 2026 – takes effect November 1, 2026. It follows the definition-led template that captures the dual-currency model regardless of AMOE structure, and it gives operators a defined wind-down window. Louisiana reached the same practical outcome by a different route: its own statutory ban bill (SB 181) was vetoed by Governor Jeff Landry, but the state already treats dual-currency sweepstakes as illegal under a 2025 attorney-general opinion and Gaming Control Board cease-and-desist enforcement, and the major operators exited in mid-2025. Indiana’s own ban (HB 1052) already took effect on July 1, 2026, and Maine’s (LD 2007) in mid-July, so those markets are already closed. Players in Louisiana are already locked out; players in Oklahoma have until the fall.
Why the Wave Is Not Yet Over
The structural insight from the 2025–2026 wave is that legislative copy-paste is fast and effective. Once California passed AB 831, the bill text became a portable template that any state legislator could lift verbatim. Industry trade groups for licensed land-based and online operators have lobbied for AB 831-style language in additional states. The probable next entries in the prohibited column are Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Hawaii, each of which has a 2026 bill in committee that draws on California’s language. None of these bills had passed as of August 2026, but the trend line is unambiguous.
How Operators Enforce State Restrictions Technically
Geo-restriction in this category is a three-layer technical stack. The first layer is IP geolocation at signup, run against the registration address. The second layer is KYC validation when a redemption is requested; the operator confirms that the government ID on file matches the registered state. The third layer is real-time session geolocation, typically IP plus optional GPS for the mobile clients, that checks the player’s current location against the eligible-state list each session. A user who travels into an excluded state will fail layer three and lose access for the session, even if their KYC-validated state of residence is permissive.
Stake.us runs the most aggressive geolocation stack of the five reference operators. Mobile sessions request GPS at launch and re-verify every few minutes during gameplay. Web sessions on the desktop client check IP and browser-reported geolocation against the eligible-state list. The other four operators run lighter checks. Chumba and McLuck primarily rely on IP at signup with periodic re-checks. Pulsz and Wow Vegas use IP-plus-browser-geo at session start. None of the operators currently use cell-tower triangulation or Wi-Fi fingerprinting, which are common in regulated-iGaming products. The result is that geo-enforcement in the sweepstakes category is meaningfully looser than in licensed online gambling, but it is tight enough that VPN evasion is detected and accounts using VPNs are flagged.
Why VPNs Don’t Solve the Problem
A common assumption is that a VPN can move a banned-state player into the permissive footprint. The assumption is wrong for three reasons. First, every operator publishes a no-VPN policy in its terms of service, and VPN use is grounds for account termination and balance forfeiture even when no other rule is broken. Second, KYC requires a government ID matching the registered state. A VPN does not change the state on a player’s driver’s license. Third, operators run server-side IP-reputation checks that flag known commercial VPN ranges. A flagged signup never gets out of the funnel. The combination of these three controls is why the state-by-state matrix is the operating reality regardless of how creative a player wants to be with their network.
The KYC Anchor
KYC at first redemption is the structural anchor that makes the state-by-state map work. The operator requires a government-issued photo ID, the last four digits of the player’s social security number, and proof of address (utility bill, bank statement, lease agreement). The ID’s issuing state and the proof-of-address state must match. They must also match the registration state on file. Any mismatch triggers manual review and, in most cases, account flagging. This is why even a determined player in Washington cannot maintain an account by claiming a Texas address; the proof-of-address requirement breaks the workaround at the redemption stage when it actually matters.
What Happens When You Cross State Lines
Travel is the most common state-by-state question we field from readers. The short version: brief travel is fine, your account is not suspended, and access resumes automatically when you return to a permissive state. Geolocation enforcement runs on device-of-access, not on registered residency. If you live in Texas (permissive), maintain a Texas-validated account, and travel through Nevada (off-limits), opening the operator client in Nevada will block your session. Closing the client and resuming play after you arrive in Arizona (permissive) restores access. The account itself is not touched. No flag is set. No balance is at risk.
Long stays in a banned or off-limits state are different. Most operators define “state of residence” in their terms as where the player spends the majority of the year. A Texas-registered player who relocates to Idaho for six months and continues to access the account from Idaho IPs will eventually trigger a compliance review. The review can result in either a request to update the registered state (with corresponding eligibility re-check, which will fail) or, more commonly, a manual hold pending clarification. The threshold varies by operator but typically falls in the 30-to-90-day continuous-access range. Snowbird-style seasonal patterns generally pass through unflagged because the access pattern returns to the home state.
Cross-Border Travel and Account Continuity
The same logic extends across international borders. A US-registered player who travels to Mexico, Canada, or Europe will find the sweepstakes-casino account inaccessible because operator geolocation excludes non-US IPs entirely. Returning to a permissive US state restores access. KYC is not revisited. Existing balances are preserved. The only practical wrinkle is that some operators’ mobile apps may not function correctly on foreign networks even for read-only operations (balance check, history view), depending on how the app handles the geolocation failure. The web client is more forgiving and typically allows balance inspection from outside the eligible footprint.
Best-Practice Travel Checklist
For players who travel frequently and want to avoid friction, three steps reduce the chance of any flag. First, complete KYC and first redemption before traveling, because triggering KYC from outside the home state is far more likely to draw manual review than triggering it from the registered address. Second, avoid logging in from a banned state even briefly during travel, because some operators log session attempts and the cumulative count can prompt review. Third, if a long stay in another state becomes likely, contact support proactively to disclose the change rather than letting compliance flag it automatically. Pre-disclosed moves are typically resolved with a state-change request and re-KYC; flagged moves can sit in review for weeks.
Five Real-World Scenarios
The matrix is easier to use when grounded in concrete situations. Below are five scenarios drawn from the most common reader questions, each with the operating answer and the underlying reason. The scenarios assume the player’s identity is valid, KYC has been completed where applicable, and the account history is clean.
Scenario 1: Texas Resident, Weekend in Las Vegas
Setup: Account registered in Texas, KYC complete. Travels to Las Vegas for a weekend conference. Result: Session blocked when launching the operator client from a Nevada IP. Account untouched. Login attempt is logged but produces no flag for a one-time travel pattern. Resumes normally upon return to Texas. Reason: Layer-three session geolocation rejects Nevada IPs at every reference operator. Layer-one and layer-two KYC are unaffected by the travel. The system is designed for exactly this case.
Scenario 2: California Resident Post-AB 831
Setup: Existing account registered in California prior to January 1, 2026, with US$120 outstanding SC balance. Result: Operator emails 90-day wind-down notice in November 2025; balance redeemable through March 31, 2026. After March 31 the account is locked, residual SC are forfeited under the terms-of-service force-majeure clause. Reason: AB 831 took effect Jan 1, 2026. Operators uniformly chose the orderly wind-down path rather than fighting the statute. Players who acted before the March 31 deadline kept their balances. Players who did not lost them.
Scenario 3: Snowbird, Wisconsin Summer to Florida Winter
Setup: Account registered in Wisconsin, KYC complete with Wisconsin documents. Travels to Florida for six months in winter. Result: Sessions during Florida months work normally; both states are permissive and operators do not flag the pattern. KYC is not revisited. Redemptions hit the Wisconsin bank account regardless of session location. Reason: Both states are permissive, so geolocation enforcement is satisfied on every session. The state-of-residence concept is anchored to where the player spends the most time over the calendar year. Snowbird patterns return to the home state each year and remain consistent.
Scenario 4: New Mexico Resident with Vermont-Style Bank Account
Setup: Account registered in New Mexico (permissive). Linked bank account at a Vermont-headquartered credit union. Result: Account approved, KYC clears using New Mexico documents, ACH redemptions hit the Vermont-headquartered account without issue. Reason: Banking-rail state and player-residence state are separate concepts. The operator validates state of residence against the player’s ID and proof of address, not against the bank’s state of incorporation. ACH routing is a downstream function that does not interact with the eligibility check.
Scenario 5: Indiana Resident, 2026 Ban Wind-Down
Setup: Active account in Indiana, US$80 SC balance, HB 1052 effective July 1, 2026. Result: Operator-emailed wind-down notice arrived in spring 2026 with a redemption window running past the effective date (specific dates varied by brand). A player who redeemed the balance before the cut-off received full ACH payment; the account then locked and access geo-blocked from Indiana. Reason: Operators consistently handle scheduled state bans with a redemption window at least as long as the statutory effective date plus a buffer. Players who acted within the window kept their balances. Players who did not, lost them.
Tax Implications and Cross-State Redemption Wrinkles
Sweepstakes-casino tax treatment is uniform across states from the operator’s perspective. Every reference operator issues an IRS Form 1099-MISC – Box 3, prize/other income – once a player’s aggregate annual SC redemptions reach US$2,000. That threshold was raised from $600 by the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act, starting with the 2026 tax year; the prize income is still taxable at the player’s ordinary-income rate even if the total stays under $2,000 and no form is issued. The state of residence determines whether additional state income tax applies, not the state of operator incorporation. A Texas resident redeeming US$1,200 from a Curaçao-licensed operator pays federal income tax on the prize income and zero state income tax because Texas has no state income tax. A California-prior-to-AB-831 resident paid both federal and California state income tax.
The federal tax obligation is real-time, not annual. Players who win significant SC during the year owe estimated quarterly tax payments on that income. The operator’s 1099-MISC at year-end is documentation of the redemption, not a tax-withholding event. Operators do not withhold tax from redemptions at the federal level (unlike sportsbook winnings, where withholding can apply). The full redemption amount hits the player’s bank account, and the player is responsible for paying the corresponding tax during the year. This is one of the most commonly misunderstood aspects of the category, and a long enough win streak without quarterly payment can produce an underpayment penalty at filing time.
What Happens If You Move Mid-Year
A player who moves from Texas to New York mid-year owes federal tax on the full annual redemption amount, Texas state tax on the prize income earned during the Texas residency portion (US$0 because Texas has no state income tax), and New York state tax on the prize income earned during the New York residency portion. The operator’s 1099-MISC will reflect the year-end registered state, which may or may not match the actual residency timeline. Players whose state of residence changes mid-year should keep their own records and reconcile against the 1099 when filing.
Why Mechanics Matter More Than Math
The dual-currency model adds a layer of complexity to tax treatment that pure cash gambling does not have. The IRS treats SC redemption as prize income, not as gambling winnings, which means the offsetting-losses provision that applies to gambling winnings does not apply to SC. A player cannot deduct SC bets that lost against SC that was redeemed. This is unique to the sweepstakes category and is one of the structural reasons regulators and tax counsel are still debating the right tax characterization of the model. Our companion piece on how sweepstakes casinos work covers the mechanics in detail.
2027 Outlook: Pending Legislation and Probable Movers
Several states have 2026 bills in active committee that could move to the prohibited column during the 2027 legislative session: Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Hawaii. Each of these draws on the California AB 831 template, and each has been positioned by sponsors as a consumer-protection measure rather than as a revenue-protection measure (although the underlying political coalition usually includes licensed land-based or iGaming operators). The probable timeline for any of these bills to become law is twelve to eighteen months from mid-2026, putting an effective ban date in mid-to-late 2027 if any of the bills passes.
Two states are heading in the opposite direction. Mississippi has bills in committee that would either codify the dual-currency model as permitted sweepstakes (clearing the active AG probe) or formalize a ban. The outcome is highly committee-dependent and could go either way during the 2026 fall session. Michigan has had informal discussions about a structured re-entry path for sweepstakes operators under a state-level licensing framework, which would re-open the state to the major brands in exchange for licensing fees and tax. No bill has been introduced as of August 2026, but the policy conversation is active.
Expert Opinions on the Trajectory
Analysts at Eilers & Krejcik Gaming have publicly projected that more states will pass AB 831-style bans through 2027, pointing to a political economy that favors prohibition: licensed iGaming operators back the bans, consumer-protection groups back the bans, and the sweepstakes category itself has limited political infrastructure to push back. The Social and Promotional Games Association (SPGA) has increased its state-level lobbying, but the structural odds still favor more prohibition rather than less. Players in currently-permissive high-population states should expect access to become less stable over the next eighteen months, with Massachusetts and Pennsylvania among the higher-confidence near-term flips.
Federal Preemption Considerations
Unlike CFTC-regulated prediction markets, sweepstakes casinos have no federal preemption argument. The category exists under 18 U.S.C. § 1955 only to the extent state law permits sweepstakes mechanics. There is no parallel to the Commodity Exchange Act that the prediction-market industry uses to invoke federal preemption against state gambling laws. That asymmetry is why the state-by-state grid is the operating legal reality for sweepstakes operators in a way it is not for prediction markets. The companion mapping for prediction markets is in prediction markets legality and the prediction-markets pillar.
Pros, Cons, and Use Case Recommendations
The state-by-state map produces different practical conclusions depending on what the player wants out of the category. Below are five use-case recommendations grounded in the July 2026 grid plus a balanced pros-and-cons read of the model from a state-availability lens. The recommendations assume the player lives in a permissive state and has the patience to complete KYC at first redemption.
Pros of the State-by-State Model
- Wide availability: The 34 open states cover most US adults, and major operators serve each one without distinction.
- Travel flexibility: Brief travel into banned states does not lock the account, and returning to a permissive state restores access automatically.
- Tax transparency: 1099-MISC (Box 3) at US$2,000+ is uniform across operators and states. No withholding at redemption means players control cash flow.
- Operator competition: Five major brands across the permissive footprint produce real promotional and product competition.
- Clear AMOE path: Every operator publishes a free-entry mechanism, which is the structural defense that lets the category exist at all.
Cons of the State-by-State Model
- Map volatility: The 2025–2026 statutory wave moved California, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Montana, Indiana, Maine, and Tennessee out of the permissive column. More states will likely follow during 2026–2027.
- Limited recourse in banned states: A player in Washington, Idaho, or Nevada has no operator path to access. VPN workarounds do not survive KYC.
- Cross-state friction: Long stays in banned or restricted states can trigger compliance review, even for players with valid home-state KYC.
- No federal preemption: Unlike CFTC-regulated prediction markets, sweepstakes operators have no federal-law shield against state-level prohibition.
- Tax complexity for mid-year movers: 1099-MISC reports against the registered year-end state, which may not match the player’s actual residency timeline.
Five Use-Case Recommendations
- For the casual permissive-state player (most US adults): Open accounts at two or three brands to compare promotional intensity. Stake.us and Pulsz are the strongest combination for general play in July 2026.
- For the frequent traveler: Complete KYC and first redemption before traveling. Avoid logging in from banned states during travel. Chumba, Pulsz, McLuck, and Wow Vegas share the smallest exclusion lists if your travel pattern overlaps with restricted states.
- For the Oklahoma player: Redeem balances before the November 1, 2026 statutory wind-down. Indiana’s window already closed on July 1. Don’t accumulate SC that you don’t have time to redeem.
- For the high-volume player: Redemption floors and rails vary by brand – Stake.us settles in crypto (BTC/USDC) while most others use ACH or check – so confirm each brand’s current floor in its terms before you commit volume. Tax tracking is the same across operators.
- For the player in a restricted state: Mississippi and Michigan players should monitor the operator-by-operator availability list quarterly. Don’t assume a brand that served you last month still serves you this month.
Verdict: The Map Is Workable but Drifting
The July 2026 state-by-state matrix is workable for most US adults. The 34 open states still cover a majority of the country’s adults, every major operator serves each of them, and the legal questions at the federal level have been answered for the moment in favor of the no-purchase-necessary doctrine. The eight hard-ban states plus the enforcement tier (Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Iowa, Michigan, Louisiana) are excluded for structural reasons that are unlikely to flip during 2026. Travel is handled gracefully by operator geolocation. The tax framework is uniform. The pricing across the five reference operators is competitive.
The case against the model from a state-availability perspective is the trajectory. California, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Montana, Indiana, Maine, and Tennessee were all permissive within the last two years and are not now. Louisiana has already been emptied by regulator enforcement, and Oklahoma leaves the open column on November 1, 2026. Several more states have bills in committee that could pass in 2026–2027. The open footprint has already fallen from nearly all 50 states toward the mid-30s, with the lost markets among the most populous. Players who treat the current map as durable rather than as a snapshot will be unpleasantly surprised over the next eighteen months. The right posture is to read the matrix as a working document, recheck before any first purchase, and assume that any individual state entry can move.
Our composite recommendation for July 2026: open accounts at two of Stake.us, Pulsz, and Wow Vegas for the best combination of cashier experience, slot library, and promotional value. Complete KYC early. Track redemptions against the US$2,000 1099-MISC threshold. Watch the legislative-bill tracker for your state and the adjacent ones, because the statutory wave is moving faster than most categories. The full operator rankings are in our best sweepstakes casinos roundup.
Related Coverage
- Best Sweepstakes Casinos USA (2026): Top 12 Ranked – operator rankings and full reviews for the permissive-state player
- How Sweepstakes Casinos Work: 1 SC=$1, $2K Tax – mechanics deep dive on the dual-currency model
- Are Sweepstakes Casinos Legal in USA? State Bans – the federal-and-state legality overview
- Prediction Markets by State 2026: 50-State Legal Map – companion 50-state grid for CFTC-regulated event contracts
- Are Prediction Markets Legal in the USA? – the federal-preemption framework
- Best Prediction Markets USA (August 2026) – adjacent product category for users in restricted states
Frequently Asked Questions
Which states are banned from sweepstakes casinos in August 2026?
Eight states enforce hard statutory bans on the dual-currency model as of August 2026: California, Connecticut, Indiana, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, New York, and Tennessee. One more is enacted with a later effective date – Oklahoma on November 1, 2026 – which brings the total to 9 by year-end. Separately, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Iowa, Michigan, and Louisiana keep operators out through pre-existing gambling law, a state attorney-general opinion, or enforcement authority rather than a dedicated sweepstakes ban – Louisiana’s own ban bill (SB 181) was vetoed, but its 2025 AG opinion and Gaming Control Board actions already removed operators. Maryland is often listed as banned by mistake; its 2025 and 2026 ban bills died in committee, so it is not banned.
Can I play if I travel to a banned state for a few days?
No. Operator geolocation enforcement blocks sessions from banned-state IPs at the session layer, regardless of where the account is registered. Your account is not suspended and your balance is not at risk. Access resumes automatically when you return to a permissive state. There is no operator-supported workaround for in-state play during travel, and VPN use is grounds for account termination under every reference operator’s terms of service.
Which operators serve the most states in August 2026?
Chumba, Pulsz, McLuck, and Wow Vegas each exclude 14 states, putting their footprint at roughly 36 states. Stake.us excludes 16, adding Kentucky and Vermont to the common list. Within a single permissive state the choice between brands is usually a function of game library and cashier experience rather than availability, since the brand-by-brand differences are at the margins.
What is the difference between Banned and Restricted in the matrix?
Banned states have a dedicated statute that removes the dual-currency model with no path to entry: California, Connecticut, Indiana, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, New York, and Tennessee, with Oklahoma joining on its November 1, 2026 effective date. Restricted states keep operators out through enforcement rather than a sweepstakes-specific statute, or have partial coverage and an active inquiry: Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Iowa, Michigan, and Louisiana sit here, along with Mississippi’s AG watch. Louisiana’s own ban bill (SB 181) was vetoed, but its 2025 AG opinion and Gaming Control Board enforcement already keep operators out. Restricted is a moving category; any of these can shift toward a clean ban or back toward Legal depending on how the operator-by-operator response evolves.
Do I owe state income tax on SC redemptions?
State income tax on prize income follows the state of residence, not the state of operator incorporation. A Texas resident pays zero state income tax on SC redemptions because Texas has no state income tax. A California resident pays California state income tax on prize income earned during the California residency portion. A player who moves mid-year should keep records of the residency timeline and reconcile against the operator’s 1099-MISC at filing time. The federal tax obligation is the same regardless of state.
Will more states ban sweepstakes casinos in 2027?
Probably yes. Several states have 2026 bills in committee that could move during the 2027 legislative session: Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Hawaii. Each draws on California’s AB 831 template. Analysts at Eilers & Krejcik Gaming have projected further state bans through 2027. Players in currently-permissive high-population states should expect access to become less stable over the next 18 months. The matrix in this article will be updated as legislation moves.
Why do sweepstakes operators stay out of Nevada?
Nevada’s Gaming Control Board takes the position that any online gambling-style product must hold a state license under the existing Gaming Control Act, and it reads the dual-currency model as functionally gambling regardless of the AMOE. This is enforcement under existing licensing law, not a dedicated sweepstakes ban. No operator has been willing to litigate the position because losing means permanent expulsion from Nevada and reputational damage with the most respected gaming regulator in the country. The Nevada exclusion is protective of the licensed land-based market, not hostile to the sweepstakes mechanic in the abstract.
Does the operator’s home jurisdiction matter for state legality?
Not for the state-by-state map. The operator’s incorporation state (Curaçao, Gibraltar, Malta, US-incorporated) governs corporate-law questions, but it does not change which US states the operator can serve. State legality is determined by the player’s state of residence and the relevant state statute or regulator position. Every reference operator publishes its excluded-state list inside its US-facing sweepstakes rules, and that list is the operating reality regardless of where the parent entity is incorporated.
Popular sweepstakes casino reviews & related guides
- Casino Click review
- Crown Coins Casino review
- McLuck review
- Global Poker review
- Punt Social Casino review
- Chanced Casino review
- Modo.us review
- Hello Millions review
- Funzpoints review
- Fortune Coins review
- Go Go Gold review
- LoneStar Casino review
- What are Sweeps Coins?
- Fastest-paying sweepstakes casinos
- Sweepstakes casino promo codes
- Free Sweeps Coins (no deposit)
- How to redeem Sweeps Coins
- Sweepstakes casino no-deposit bonuses
Featured sweepstakes casinos
