Sweepstakes Casino Legislation Tracker 2026

The 2026 legislative cycle produced six state-level bans on sweepstakes casinos. The 2026 cycle is shaping up to be at least as aggressive: six new bills have been introduced across the country, and the first major municipal lawsuit has added a new dimension to the enforcement landscape. According to Gambling Insider’s 2026 bill tracker, proposals targeting sweepstakes casinos are now active in Florida, Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, Iowa, and Oklahoma — states that collectively represent a significant share of the remaining US market.

This tracker covers each active bill, the enforcement actions happening outside the legislative process, and the financial forecasts that project what all of this means for the industry’s bottom line.

Active Bills — State-by-State Breakdown

Each of the six active 2026 bills takes a slightly different approach, but they share a common thread: classifying sweepstakes casinos as illegal gambling and imposing penalties on operators who continue to serve residents of those states.

Florida — HB 591. Florida’s bill carries outsized significance because of the Seminole Compact. The state’s gambling framework is shaped by the Seminole Tribe’s exclusive agreement with the state government, and sweepstakes casinos have been a persistent irritant to that arrangement. HB 591 would prohibit sweepstakes casino operations in Florida and align the state’s definition of illegal gambling to explicitly cover the dual-currency model. The Seminole Tribe’s political influence makes this bill a strong candidate for passage, though the legislative timeline remains uncertain. Florida is among the largest remaining sweepstakes markets by population.

Indiana — HB 1052. Indiana’s bill has made the most legislative progress of any 2026 proposal. HB 1052 passed the Indiana House with an 87-11 vote and cleared the Senate 37-8 — margins that signal overwhelming bipartisan support, reminiscent of California’s unanimous AB 831 vote. The bill was sent to Governor Mike Braun on February 27, 2026, and would take effect on July 1, 2026 if signed. Indiana already has a regulated sports betting and casino market, giving the state’s gaming industry a strong incentive to eliminate unlicensed competition.

Maine — LD 2007. Maine’s proposal is narrower in scope than the Florida or Indiana bills but still targets the core sweepstakes model. LD 2007 would amend Maine’s gambling statutes to include simulated gambling with redeemable virtual currencies. The bill is in the early committee stage, and its path to passage depends partly on how Maine’s tribal gaming interests position themselves — a dynamic similar to what played out in California.

Mississippi — SB 2104. Mississippi’s bill reflects the state’s gaming industry protecting its turf. With a well-established casino sector centered in Tunica and on the Gulf Coast, Mississippi has both the political will and the institutional framework to enforce a sweepstakes ban. SB 2104 would add sweepstakes casinos to the state’s prohibited gambling activities and authorize the Mississippi Gaming Commission to enforce compliance.

Iowa — SF 2289. Iowa’s approach emphasizes consumer protection alongside prohibition. SF 2289 includes provisions for consumer education and resources for problem gambling — elements that aren’t present in most other states’ bills. The Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission would play a role in enforcement, which gives the bill an institutional home that some other proposals lack.

Oklahoma — SB 1589. Oklahoma’s bill targets sweepstakes casinos within the broader context of the state’s tribal gaming compacts. Oklahoma’s tribal casinos generate billions in annual revenue, and the tribes view unlicensed sweepstakes platforms as direct competitors drawing customers away from regulated facilities. SB 1589 would make operating a sweepstakes casino that serves Oklahoma residents a criminal offense, with penalties aligned to the state’s existing gambling statutes. The bill has support from both the tribal gaming industry and law enforcement, giving it a plausible path through the legislature if it clears committee.

Taken together, these six bills represent a geographic spread that covers the South, the Midwest, and New England. If all six pass — which is unlikely in a single cycle, but not impossible given the momentum — the cumulative market impact would rival the California and New York bans in total lost revenue for operators.

Enforcement Actions Beyond Legislation

Legislation is only one front in the regulatory campaign against sweepstakes casinos. Enforcement actions by state attorneys general and, more recently, city governments are adding pressure from directions the industry didn’t anticipate.

Throughout 2026, state regulators issued more than 100 cease-and-desist letters to sweepstakes casino operators, according to Gambling Insider. Louisiana alone sent approximately 40 letters; Illinois issued 65. Arizona and Maryland were also active in targeting operators that continued to serve their residents without authorization. Cease-and-desist letters don’t carry the force of law on their own, but they establish a documented record of the state’s position — and they often precede formal legal action if the operator doesn’t comply.

The most significant enforcement development in 2026 is the Baltimore lawsuit. In March 2026, the City of Baltimore filed suit against six sweepstakes casino operators — including VGW (Chumba Casino), Stake.us (Sweepstakes Limited), and McLuck (B2 Services) — alleging that the platforms targeted vulnerable communities with aggressive marketing and operated in violation of Maryland law. This is the second major municipal action against sweepstakes casinos — following the Los Angeles City Attorney’s civil suit against Stake.us and over 20 related defendants in August 2026 — and it broadens the plaintiff category to include city governments with standing to claim harm to their residents and communities.

State attorney general investigations are also ongoing in several states that haven’t yet passed formal bans. These investigations may or may not result in enforcement actions, but they indicate that regulators are building cases and accumulating evidence — a process that often precedes either prosecution or legislative referrals.

Market Impact — E&K’s 2026 Scenarios

The financial analysts who track the sweepstakes casino industry most closely — Eilers & Krejcik Gaming — have already adjusted their outlook in response to the regulatory wave. Their projections, reported through Sweepsy, paint three scenarios for 2026, and even the optimistic one shows a market under pressure.

E&K’s 2026 net revenue forecast was itself a downgrade. The firm originally projected $4.7 billion in net revenue for 2026 but revised that figure down to $4.0 billion — a 16% year-over-year increase from 2026’s $3.4 billion, but far below the growth rates the industry had been posting in prior years. The revision reflected the impact of the California and New York bans, which together removed the two largest single-state markets from the industry’s addressable base.

For 2026, E&K projects three scenarios. The base case calls for $3.6 billion in net revenue — a 10% decline from 2026 and the first year-over-year contraction in the industry’s history. The bear case, which assumes several additional large-state bans pass and enforcement intensifies, projects a 30% decline. The bull case — which assumes no major new bans and effective industry self-regulation — still only projects a 14% increase, a fraction of the growth rates the market posted between 2020 and 2026.

The common thread across all three scenarios is that the era of unchecked hypergrowth is over. The sweepstakes casino industry’s compound annual growth rate of 60 to 70% between 2020 and 2026, according to KPMG’s Sweepstakes Gaming Primer, was built on an expanding map of accessible states and minimal regulatory friction. Both of those conditions are now reversing. The question for the industry isn’t whether regulation is coming — it’s already here — but whether the operators can adapt fast enough to survive the transition from an unregulated frontier to a market defined by state-by-state compliance requirements.