Assembly Bill 831 Faces Intense Opposition in California
Assembly Bill 831 (AB831), introduced on June 24th via a “gut-and-amend” process, is facing significant pushback from industry groups and California residents. The bill seeks to amend California’s gambling laws, specifically targeting digital sweepstakes games utilizing what it defines as problematic mechanics. This has sparked concerns about the bill’s potential to unintentionally criminalize legitimate promotional activities.
## Vague Language and Unintended Consequences
Critics argue that AB831 lacks precise definitions for crucial terms like “dual currency system,” “indirect consideration,” and “cash equivalents.” This ambiguity, they contend, creates a broad net that could ensnare a wide array of digital promotions, not just those considered gambling. The Social and Promotional Games Association (SPGA) describes the bill as excessively vague, hastily drafted, and fraught with risk. Their legal analysis suggests that many common brand promotions would fall under AB831’s prohibition of “online sweepstakes games.”
The SPGA highlights the potentially severe penalties associated with violating the bill, including fines up to $25,000 and imprisonment for one year. This liability extends not only to platforms offering the games but also to vendors, payment processors, and even media outlets involved in promoting them. Gaming attorney Bill Gantz testified before the Senate Governmental Organization Committee that social casino freemium games are established entertainment services, legally available in California since 2012, and that both proponents and opponents of AB831 employ similar digital currency systems.
## Industry Concerns and Public Backlash
Two prominent industry coalitions, the Social Gaming Leadership Alliance (SGLA) and the SPGA, are leading the opposition. They argue that AB831 is overly broad and could inadvertently criminalize legal promotional activities from established brands. In a statement to the Senate committee, SGLA Executive Director Jeff Duncan asserted that the bill’s primary aim is not player protection, but rather the protection of existing businesses from competition.
The public outcry against AB831 has been substantial. The SGLA reported receiving over 20,000 communications—calls, texts, and letters—from California residents expressing opposition during the week preceding the July 2nd Senate hearing. Senator Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh commented on the lack of due process in the bill’s creation, emphasizing the need for a more thorough and transparent legislative process.
## Calls for Delay and Revision
Both the SGLA and SPGA are advocating for AB831 to be amended into a two-year bill. This extension, they argue, would facilitate comprehensive consultations, allow for clearer definitions of key terms, and provide ample opportunity for a more transparent and deliberative review process. This approach, they believe, would mitigate the risk of unintended consequences and ensure that the bill’s scope is appropriately tailored to its intended purpose.
