Virtual Gaming Worlds (VGW) has made a sweeping change to its operational policy.
The world’s largest sweepstakes casino operator has announced the raising of its minimum playing age from 18 to 21 marking a significant shift in the industry. VGW has applied the age requirement to its Chumba Casino, LuckyLand Slots and Global Poker brands. Starting on Feb. 19, players under 21 will no longer be allowed to play VGW’s casino sweepstake offerings but still have the opportunity to redeem Sweeps Coins for prizes.
On April 17, players under 21 will no longer have access to sweepstakes or prizes. Accounts that are under the age threshold will be inaccessible but will have personal data retained to meet legal requirements. A player can re-open their accounts once they reach 21.
Regulators keep a close watch on VGW
VGW has raised its age requirement as it continues to face regulatory scrutiny nationwide.
Earlier this month, a group of Connecticut lawmakers filed a measure that proposes a ban on real or simulated online casino gaming and sports wagering for sweepstake operators.
The measure, Senate Bill 1235, was introduced after the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) sent a cease and desist letter to VGW. The DCP accused VGW of providing unlicensed gambling in violation of Connecticut law and fair trade practices. As a result of the letter, VGW shuttered operations in Connecticut late last year.
VGW also has plans to exit Nevada with its Global Poker brand starting on April 15. Customers in Nevada will also be barred from making any redemption requests and will lose access to the Global Poker accounts in April.
Perth-based VGW, which generated $4 billion in revenue in FY2023, has also received cease and desist letters from regulators in Delaware, Michigan, Idaho and Washington.
Favorable result for VGW
VGW received good news in Georgia after the state’s Northern District Court dismissed a class action lawsuit brought against the sweepstakes giant by Fair Gaming Advocates.
The suit was dismissed because the court did not have proper standing to hear the case due to the nature of VGW’s websites, which don’t merit inclusion under Georgia’s long-arm statute. The judge also detailed how VGW does not deliver goods or services to the state.
VGW faces another class action in Georgia over the company’s terms and conditions.
