California Tribes File Lawsuits Against Cardrooms

By Matt Speakman,
Betting Expert at online-gambling.com

Matt Speakman Betting Expert at online-gambling.com

A die-hard fan of the Patriots, Matt Speakman is an expert on everything related to sports betting and DFS sites. Over the years, he has proven a valuable asset for our team at online-gambling.com. You can find Speakman's professional tips and tricks in any of his many articles on the website.

• Twitter
• Email

More About Matt Speakman

Last updated: June 14, 2025

Following years of appeals and arguments, tribes in California can now take cardrooms to court. The passing of the Tribal Nations Access to Justice Act allows them to sue cardrooms and third-party providers of proposition services.

History of the Cardroom Conflict

California tribes have been fighting with cardrooms since 2020 when SCA 6 authorized player-backed games at cardrooms. California residents could play games like Texas Hold’em, where one player serves as the bank. Players take turns being the banker and must pay out any winnings to everyone else.

However, these cardrooms started using third-party providers (TPPs) to act as banks, and the players no longer needed to fund the games themselves. Additionally, the cardrooms began offering games like baccarat and blackjack while claiming they were player-backed and the TPPs were independent. That’s why Governor Newsom passed a bill allowing tribes to sue these cardrooms.

Тhe Tribes’ Concerns

The tribes expressed concern that the cardrooms infringed on their rights and offered games they couldn’t. This was possible due to the TPPs, which voluntarily act as the house. They took advantage of various loopholes, like having the games take breaks so the TPP isn’t constantly at the table.

While TPPs maintain that they are financially independent and must pay fees to play at the tables, the tribes believe they have an unlawful interest in the wagers. That is because the winnings are their only source of income. Additionally, TPPs provide advertisement money and security equipment to cardrooms, with some being co-owned by cardroom owners.

Cardroom Defendants

Cardrooms are not backing down without a fight, claiming that TPPs have always been legal and licensed by the state. Many cardrooms and their employees protested before SB 549’s passing, claiming it would destroy business. All the games that use TPPs are distinct from the ones offered by tribes and do not infringe on their rights.

One of the cardrooms, Artichoke Joe’s, has also provided a rebuttal, citing Proposition 64. According to it, any plaintiff needs to have individual standing to sue. Since this lawsuit includes multiple tribes and cardrooms, some of which are far apart, it’s unlikely they could harm each other. The rebuttal argues this makes SB 549 invalid.

New Rules

While the lawsuits are ongoing, the state’s Bureau of Gambling Control is working with California Attorney General Rob Bonta to craft new regulations. They propose rule changes to blackjack, which could ban the game from cardrooms. Additionally, there would be new regulations for player-banked games like:

• The player-dealer must always be seated, and the position rotates after each hand. Surveillance cameras will record proof.
• The game ends after 40 minutes if at least two other players don’t become dealers, aside from the TPP.
• TPPs can only accept and settle wagers if they are the dealer.
• Only one TPP is allowed per table.
• If a TPP is the dealer, the role must go to a player on the next hand.
• Tables must have a notice stating anyone can be a dealer and that dealers can’t win or lose more than their wager.

Cardrooms would have 60 days to modify their tables and submit reapplication requests for blackjack games. While California acknowledges this would impact cardrooms, the Bureau of Gambling Control is considering the regulations. It has also received feedback from the public, who primarily support the cardrooms.

Conclusion

The lawsuits are ongoing, so it remains to be seen how cardrooms will be affected. However, the recent regulations may impact their business and force them to restructure. We will keep you updated with any new developments.