AB831, the much-discussed bill that would ban online sweepstakes gambling in California, has been amended to remove the potential threat of individual players being criminalized for using the frowned-upon platforms.
The update bill removes the word “person” from the list of parties who would be found in violation of the law for taking part in a sweepstakes scheme.
The original language stated that “It is unlawful for any person, entity, financial institution, payment processor, geolocation provider, gaming content supplier, platform provider, or media affiliate to support directly or indirectly the operation, conduct, or promotion of an online sweepstakes game within this state.”
The amended text strikes the word “person” and also newly specifies that only “knowingly” supporting sweepstakes casinos or sportsbooks would be punishable. The latter change seeks to ensure that intent becomes a consideration in whether charges would be laid against violators.
Don’t hate the player, hate the game
This had been a point of concern during each of the bill’s first two Senate hearings.
AB831 advanced from the Governmental Organization Committee by a 15-0 vote on July 8 and was approved in another unanimous vote, this time 6-0, by the Public Safety Committee on July 15.
But, in both of those committees’ hearings, the question of who the bill would seek to punish got plenty of discussion. In the first committee, Sen. Angelique Ashby voiced concern that individual players may end up facing misdemeanor charges, which she said “would be deeply troubling to me.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) expressed similar concerns.
San Bernadino County District Attorney Jason Anderson stressed that neither the bill’s authors nor the DA’s office is interested in criminalizing players.
“Provisions in this bill are only intended to penalize the companies, often offshore, which are the source of this illegal gambling, who are operating these dual currency model games illegally in the state,” stated Anderson.
Now the language matches the intent.
To promote or not to promote?
While individuals with no other ties to the operation of sweeps will no longer be punished, AB831 still seeks to crack down on various suppliers who knowingly support directly or indirectly the operation or conduct of an online sweepstakes game in the state.
The bill would punish violators by fining them between $1,000 and $25,000 per instance and/or imprisoning them for up to one year.
The bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Avelino Valencia, had suggested that amendments could ditch not only the individual provision but the supplier element as well. However, as things stand, companies that supply to online sweepstakes casinos and sports betting operations would still be punishable.
One other notable change made by the amendment is to scratch the word “promote” from the sentence, “It is unlawful for any person or entity to operate, conduct, offer, or promote an online sweepstakes game in this state.”
However, the subsequent line still states that, “It is unlawful for any person, entity, financial institution, payment processor, geolocation provider, gaming content supplier, platform provider, or media affiliate to knowingly support directly or indirectly the operation, conduct, or promotion of an online sweepstakes game within this state.”
The change in language seems to spare individuals like Paris Hilton and Ryan Seacrest, who each have deals with sweepstakes casinos. However, media affiliates such as Catena Media and Better Collective are still most certainly in the crosshairs.
AB831 is awaiting a Senate Appropriations Committee discussion, although the next scheduled meeting of that committee is not until Aug. 18.
