Where sweepstakes operators can trade in the US

Status, the instrument behind it, when it took effect, and what your platform has to enforce — for all 51 US jurisdictions.

Reviewed .

How to read this

This is a reference for operators. It answers four questions per jurisdiction: whether you may accept registrations, whether those players may buy coins, whether they may redeem, and what your platform has to enforce. It is not a list of which brands accept players, and it does not tell an individual whether they may play.

Two columns do most of the work. The first is status.

  • RestrictedThe dual-currency model is prohibited, by statute or by a regulator that has told operators to stop.
  • ContestedBills advancing, a suit filed and unresolved, or a regulator handed discretion it has not used yet. Decisions here need counsel now.
  • ConditionalTrading is possible but something extra applies — registration, bonding, a redemption limit. No jurisdiction is in this bucket today.
  • OperatingNo instrument prohibiting the model was identified by the review described below.
  • Under reviewSomething is reported to exist and we could not confirm it against a primary source. Not a status — an admission.

The second is mechanism, and it is the column no competing page carries.

A prohibition written into statute and a regulator’s cease-and-desist are not the same risk. One moves when a legislature moves; the other can move next week. We separate them because the difference changes what you do about it.

Of the twenty-six jurisdictions with something on the record, eleven rest on a statute, eight on a regulator or attorney general acting, and six on law that predates the sweepstakes model entirely and reaches it anyway. The third group is the one operators most often miss, because there is no bill to track.

One bucket is empty: no jurisdiction has built a licensing or registration route that would let this model trade under conditions. That absence is itself the finding — the choice everywhere is currently open or closed, not regulated.

The map

Sweepstakes operator status by jurisdiction, reviewed 22 August 2026 Twenty-two jurisdictions restrict the dual-currency model, four are contested, twenty-four have no instrument identified, and one is under review. The same information is in the table below, state by state. Alaska — operatingAK Maine — restrictedME Vermont — operatingVT New Hampshire — operatingNH Washington — restrictedWA Idaho — restrictedID Montana — restrictedMT North Dakota — operatingND Minnesota — restrictedMN Illinois — restrictedIL Wisconsin — operatingWI Michigan — restrictedMI New York — restrictedNY Rhode Island — operatingRI Massachusetts — operatingMA Oregon — operatingOR Nevada — restrictedNV Wyoming — operatingWY South Dakota — operatingSD Iowa — contestedIA Indiana — restrictedIN Ohio — operatingOH Pennsylvania — under reviewPA New Jersey — restrictedNJ Connecticut — restrictedCT California — restrictedCA Utah — restrictedUT Colorado — operatingCO Nebraska — operatingNE Missouri — operatingMO Kentucky — contestedKY West Virginia — operatingWV Virginia — operatingVA Maryland — restrictedMD Delaware — operatingDE Arizona — restrictedAZ New Mexico — operatingNM Kansas — operatingKS Arkansas — operatingAR Tennessee — restrictedTN North Carolina — restrictedNC South Carolina — operatingSC District of Columbia — contestedDC Texas — operatingTX Oklahoma — restrictedOK Louisiana — restrictedLA Mississippi — restrictedMS Alabama — operatingAL Georgia — operatingGA Hawaii — restrictedHI Florida — contestedFL
  • 22Restrictedmay not trade
  • 4Contestedcounsel now
  • 24Operatingno instrument found
  • 1Under reviewnot yet verified
Status by jurisdiction, reviewed 22 August 2026. A summary of the table below, which is where the instrument and the required action live.

State by state

All 51 jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia. Every row carries the instrument behind it and the date it was last checked.

Fifty-one jurisdictions. Every row reviewed . Written for operators, not players.
StateStatusMechanismInstrumentEffectiveWhat you must do
AlabamaOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.
AlaskaOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.
ArizonaRestrictedenforcementArizona Department of Gaming cease-and-desist orders; A.R.S. §13-3303Block registration, play and redemption.The orders describe the conduct as including sweepstakes platforms and name operators. Promotion of gambling is a felony under §13-3303. Later 2025 and 2026 rounds are reported but were not confirmed against a primary source.
ArkansasOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.
CaliforniaRestrictedstatuteAB 831, ch. 623 Stats. 2025 — Penal Code §337oBlock registration, play and redemption. Support and promotion are separately criminal, so affiliates and media buyers must stop too.The supplier clause is the broadest of any state: financial institutions, payment processors, geolocation providers, content suppliers, platform providers and media affiliates all face the same misdemeanour.
ColoradoOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.
ConnecticutRestrictedstatuteSB 1235, Public Act 25-112 — Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-301Block registration, play and redemption unless licensed under chapter 229b. Promotion is covered by the same clause.The verb is “allows or facilitates participation”, which is wider than conducting. A violation is also an unfair trade practice under CUTPA.
DelawareOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.
District of ColumbiaContested—B26-0656, Internet Gaming and Consumer Protection Act of 2026 — pending—Nothing required today. Watch the bill.Introduced 9 April 2026, hearing held 4 May 2026, still in committee. Not passed, not transmitted for Congressional review, not law. The Office of Lottery and Gaming described it as closing a definitional gap rather than imposing a ban, so “DC bans sweepstakes” overstates what the record shows.
FloridaContestedenforcementAttorney General suit filed 19 August 2026 — Florida gambling law and FDUTPACounsel now. The Attorney General has sued operators and their payment processors; the suit is filed and unresolved.Named defendants include operators and their payment processors, which is the reach worth noting. Five gambling bills died at sine die on 13 March 2026 without targeting dual-currency sweepstakes, so this is enforcement rather than statute. Florida’s game-promotion registration statute was not pleaded, and §849.094(10) excludes matters regulated by the Gaming Control Commission — so if the gambling characterisation holds, registration never applied.
GeorgiaOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.
HawaiiRestrictedpre-existing lawHRS ch. 712 pt. III — §712-1223; §§712-1221–1222—Offer nothing to Hawaii residents. There is no sweepstakes or no-purchase-necessary exemption in the chapter.The promoting-gambling offences reach anyone who advances gambling activity, which is the hook for suppliers and promoters.
IdahoRestrictedpre-existing lawIdaho Code §18-3801; §18-3802; §18-3810; Idaho Const. art. III §20—Counsel before offering anything. Redeemable play is gambling; the promotional exemption is unavailable; and a slot-style game may be caught even with redemption switched off.The exemption for promotions “incidental to bona fide nongaming business operations” does not fit a business whose primary activity is gaming, so the no-purchase route does not rescue the redeemable tier here. Do not read this as a clean “play yes, redemption no”.
IllinoisRestrictedenforcementIllinois Gaming Board cease-and-desist letters; 720 ILCS 5/28-1(a)(12); 230 ILCS 10/18(a)(1)Block registration, play and redemption. The letters warn that affiliates and business partners are exposed as well.More than sixty letters have been issued, naming sweepstakes brands directly.
IndianaRestrictedstatuteHB 1052, P.L. 153-2026 — IC 4-33-10-7Stop conducting dual-currency games for anyone located in Indiana. The trigger reaches individual transactions, so a redemption to an Indiana player is exposure on its own.Reaches “an operator or individual” only. Supplier, vendor, promoter, affiliate and payment processor do not appear in the text.
IowaContestedstatuteSF 2289, 2026 Iowa Acts ch. 1092 — Iowa Code §99F.4(13)Counsel before continuing. The Racing and Gaming Commission may now issue a cease-and-desist against “illegal sweepstakes” without further legislation.This Act prohibits nothing new. It adds “illegal sweepstakes” to the Commission’s enforcement powers and does not define the term, so what is illegal still turns on pre-existing law.
KansasOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.
KentuckyContestedenforcementAttorney General suit filed 17 June 2026Counsel now. A suit has been filed and not resolved, so the position could change either way within months.The suit targets the dual-currency structure under consumer protection and gambling law. It is litigation, not an adjudicated prohibition.
LouisianaRestrictedstatuteHB 883 (Act 182) — R.S. 14:90.3; HB 53 (Act 48) — R.S. 15:1352(A)Block registration, play and redemption. Suppliers and promoters face their own penalty, and the underlying offences are now racketeering predicates.Act 182 captures the model through a dual-currency clause rather than the word sweepstakes, which does not appear in it. Act 48 adds no offence of its own; it makes the gambling offences racketeering predicates.
MaineRestrictedstatuteLD 2007, P.L. 2025 ch. 645 — 8 M.R.S. §§1351–1352Block registration, play and redemption. Suppliers must cut Maine-facing service: the prohibition covers supporting the operation, not only running it.The effective date is the default 90-day date for the 132nd Legislature’s second regular session, not the “mid-July” figure that circulated. Civil fine $10,000–$100,000, and the same conduct is separately unlawful gambling under Title 17-A.
MarylandRestrictedenforcementMaryland Lottery and Gaming published position and cease-and-desist list—Block registration, play and redemption.Two rounds of cease-and-desist letters in 2025 named sweepstakes brands. A statute came close and failed: HB 1226 passed the House 135–1 in March 2026 and died in the Senate at sine die, so Maryland has no sweepstakes statute.
MassachusettsOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.H 4431 was sent to study. The Attorney General’s June 2025 cease-and-desist letters targeted offshore sportsbooks and do not mention sweepstakes.
MichiganRestrictedenforcementMGCB cease-and-desist programme; MCL 750.372; PA 152 of 2019; Initiated Law 1 of 1996Block registration, play and redemption, or hold an MGCB internet gaming licence. A cease-and-desist gives fourteen days.There is no Michigan sweepstakes statute; the Board’s own guidance says Michigan law does not define the term. 193 cease-and-desist letters went out in 2025 and 45 more in April 2026. The date shown is the most recent published round.
MinnesotaRestrictedenforcementAttorney General directive, 5 November 2025; Minn. Stat. §§609.755–609.76Block registration, play and redemption.The directive names sweepstakes casinos specifically and describes the sweeps-coin mechanic. It reaches operators; no affiliate or processor language.
MississippiRestrictedenforcementMississippi Gaming Commission public notice, 17 June 2025; Miss. Code Ann. §97-33-1 et seq.Block registration, play and redemption.The notice states there is no legal exception for sweepstakes casinos and that free-to-play framing does not cure it.
MissouriOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.HB 1251 was filed and never heard.
MontanaRestrictedstatuteSB 555, ch. 626 Laws of 2025 — MCA 23-5-112Block registration, play and redemption where real currency can be paid in or out.Drafted around currency rather than around a free entry method: online casinos that allow no currency of any kind are expressly permitted, so a product that sells coin packages for money is inside the ban and a genuinely currency-free one is not.
NebraskaOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.
NevadaRestrictedpre-existing lawNRS 463.160; NRS 463.0152; NRS 462.105, 462.250, 462.280—Block registration, play and redemption. There is no licensed route for a casino-style sweepstakes product.“Any representative of value” in the definition of a gambling game is what captures sweeps coins. Assisting an unauthorised lottery is a separate gross misdemeanour. Nevada enacted nothing in 2026 and could not have — the Legislature sits in odd-numbered years.
New HampshireOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.
New JerseyRestrictedstatuteA5447, P.L. 2025 c.128 — N.J.S.A. 52:17B-139.15 et seq.Block registration, play and redemption for anyone present in New Jersey, or meet the statutory safe harbour, which a coin-package model does not.Enforced by the Division of Consumer Affairs, not the Division of Gaming Enforcement. The safe harbour requires identical odds whether entry was paid or free, and any paid entry to be ancillary to a purchase under $20.
New MexicoOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.
New YorkRestrictedstatuteS5935A, ch. 605 of 2025 — Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law §912Block registration, play, redemption and marketing. Payment processors, geolocation providers, content suppliers, platform providers and media affiliates must terminate support.Promotion is prohibited separately from operation, so advertising into New York is its own violation.
North CarolinaRestrictedpre-existing lawN.C.G.S. §14-306.4—Block registration, play and redemption. Promotion is prohibited alongside conduct.Written in 2010 for sweepstakes cafés, but the device definition is technology-neutral and names server-based systems, and it expressly reaches a promoter’s partners, affiliates, subsidiaries and contractors.
North DakotaOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.
OhioOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.HB 298 would prohibit online sweepstakes games but has not left House committee. The Casino Control Commission’s cease-and-desist letters were to prediction-market firms, not sweepstakes operators.
OklahomaRestrictedstatuteSB 1589 (2026) — 21 O.S. §941Block registration, play and redemption from 1 November 2026. Supplying, hosting or promoting the game is the same felony as running it.Vetoed 7 May 2026 and enacted over the veto on 14 May — Senate 34–10, House 68–19. The offence covers an owner or employee, geolocation provider, gaming supplier, platform provider, promoter or media affiliate who “deals or provides support”, as a Class C2 felony. The hook is a dual-currency system allowing exchange for a prize, award, cash or cash equivalent.
OregonOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.
PennsylvaniaUnder reviewenforcementGaming Control Board cease-and-desist letters — reported April 2025, unpublished—Treat as restricted and confirm with counsel. Whether the letters reached suppliers as well as operators is not on any record we could read.Reported everywhere, published nowhere we can read. Checked again on 26 August 2026: the Board’s April 2025 press releases, its board minutes and meeting transcript of 23 April 2025, its minutes of 21 May 2025, and its 2024–25 annual report, which never uses the word sweepstakes and accounts for the year’s enforcement only as “issuing urgent cease-and-desist orders against unlicensed operators”. The House Gaming Oversight Committee did meet on online sweepstakes on 7 April 2025 — that much is on the committee’s own record — but the General Assembly’s transcript host would not serve the document. Retried on 27 August 2026 and the host still would not serve it. Restricted here is a precaution, not a finding.
Rhode IslandOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.
South CarolinaOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.
South DakotaOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.
TennesseeRestrictedstatuteSB 2136 / HB 1885, Public Chapter 1117Block registration, play and redemption. Enforced by the Attorney General as a Consumer Protection Act violation, with expanded powers to demand documents.Effective on signature, so it was already in force when enacted. It supersedes the Attorney General’s December 2025 cease-and-desist letters as the reason to block.
TexasOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.SB 517 concerns amusement machines rather than online dual-currency games. The Legislature sits in odd-numbered years, so there was no 2026 session.
UtahRestrictedpre-existing lawUtah Code §76-9-1404 (online gambling promotion); §§76-9-1401–1402; HB 243 (2026), ch. 410Offer nothing to Utah residents. Offering online gambling to a person in the state is a third degree felony.The prohibition long predates HB 243; the 2026 Act widened the definitions and added a clause defeating pre-reveal mechanics. Note the renumbering: citations to §76-10-1101 are superseded.
VermontOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.
VirginiaOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.SB 579 and HB 161 both failed in 2026 and the question was referred to a study for 2027.
WashingtonRestrictedpre-existing lawRCW 9.46.240; RCW 9.46.0285—Offer nothing at all to Washington residents, including free-to-play tiers.“Thing of value” expressly includes the privilege of playing without charge, which is why the free tier is caught too. The statute reaches anyone who installs or maintains equipment for the transmission of gambling information — a class C felony that lands squarely on a platform supplier.
West VirginiaOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.Frequently reported as pressuring sweepstakes operators. The only Attorney General instrument located concerns daily fantasy sports, so nothing here is recorded as a sweepstakes action.
WisconsinOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.
WyomingOperating—No instrument identified—Trading permitted so far as this review found. No additional requirement identified.

What changed recently

Dated entries, most recent first, derived from the same records as the table. Anything below today’s date is already in force.

Statutes that reach suppliers, not only operators

Most coverage of this legislation reads it as operator law. A growing number of these instruments are not. They name the supply chain directly — platform providers, content suppliers, geolocation providers, payment processors, promoters and media affiliates — and attach the same penalty, or a separate one, to supporting an operation rather than running it.

Eleven jurisdictions reach beyond the operator on the record reviewed here:

  • California — AB 831, ch. 623 Stats. 2025 — Penal Code §337o
  • Connecticut — SB 1235, Public Act 25-112 — Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-301
  • Hawaii — HRS ch. 712 pt. III — §712-1223; §§712-1221–1222
  • Illinois — Illinois Gaming Board cease-and-desist letters; 720 ILCS 5/28-1(a)(12); 230 ILCS 10/18(a)(1)
  • Louisiana — HB 883 (Act 182) — R.S. 14:90.3; HB 53 (Act 48) — R.S. 15:1352(A)
  • Maine — LD 2007, P.L. 2025 ch. 645 — 8 M.R.S. §§1351–1352
  • Nevada — NRS 463.160; NRS 463.0152; NRS 462.105, 462.250, 462.280
  • New York — S5935A, ch. 605 of 2025 — Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law §912
  • North Carolina — N.C.G.S. §14-306.4
  • Oklahoma — SB 1589 (2026) — 21 O.S. §941
  • Washington — RCW 9.46.240; RCW 9.46.0285

Louisiana is the sharpest example. Act 182 sets a separate penalty for a platform provider, geolocation provider, gaming content supplier, promoter, endorser or media affiliate who knowingly supports or facilitates the operation — up to $20,000 and five years, doubled where somebody under twenty-one is involved — and the underlying offences are now racketeering predicates under Act 48. New York and California name almost the same list, and in California the supplier offence is criminal rather than civil.

What this changes for an operator choosing a supplier: your supplier’s exposure is now your continuity risk. A platform that has to withdraw from a state at short notice, or that is prosecuted in one, is a platform you are integrated with. Two questions worth asking any supplier before you sign, and worth asking us:

  • Which jurisdictions is your platform configured to block today, and who decides when that changes?
  • What happens to my brand’s data and balances if you exit a state I trade in?

What your platform has to enforce

The law above turns into four platform behaviours. Every one of them has to be settable per jurisdiction, because the answers differ within a single state: a state can be closed to redemption and open to play.

  • Registration — refuse an account from a blocked jurisdiction at sign-up, on location rather than on a stated address.
  • Play — a blocked jurisdiction has to stop existing accounts as well as new ones, which is a different control from the registration gate and is the one usually missing.
  • Redemption — the narrowest gate and the one several states restrict on its own. Verification runs here, before value leaves.
  • The record — what was decided, on what basis, on what date. A configuration change is only a defence if you can show when it took effect.

Where the location itself is decided is a separate question, and it is the one that determines whether any of the above works. The platform overview covers what the back office exposes.

Sources and method

Publishing the method is what separates a reference from an opinion, so:

  • Primary sources only. Every status claim traces to statute text, an enrolled act, a regulator notice or an attorney general release. Where a row cites a source, that link goes to the document itself. No row rests on a news article, a law-firm summary or another tracker.
  • “Reviewed” means somebody opened the document on the date shown and confirmed the status, the mechanism, the instrument, the effective date and whether it reaches suppliers. It does not mean a search was run.
  • A negative cannot be cited. Twenty-four rows say no instrument was identified, and no document can prove that. What those rows rest on is the search: the state’s legislature and code, its gaming or lottery regulator, and its attorney general’s published actions. If you know of an instrument we have missed, that is the most useful correction you can send us.
  • Unverified is published as unverified. Where something is reported to exist and we could not read the document, the row says under review and is excluded from every count on this page. One row is in that state today. Filling that in from secondary coverage would make the page look more complete and be less true.
  • Reviewed monthly, and the date at the top of the page changes with it. Corrections go to contact and we check them against the source rather than against the report.

One thing this page does not have: a named reviewer. It is compiled and checked by the casinoapi.tech team rather than signed by an individual. We would rather say so than imply a review that has not happened — and if you are weighing this reference against one that carries a name, that is a fair thing to weigh.

Informational only. Nothing on this site is legal advice — confirm your position with qualified US gaming counsel before launching in any state.

One thing specific to this page: a jurisdiction’s absence from the restricted list is not an assurance. It means no instrument was identified on the date shown, by the method described above. Positions change between reviews, bills become law, and a regulator can act without warning. Treat this as the starting point for a conversation with counsel, not the end of one.

Reviewed . Found an error? Tell us and we will check it against the source.