Could Pennsylvania Be the Next State to Ban Sweepstakes Casinos?

Pennsylvania may be heading towards a direct ban on sweepstakes casinos. Rep. Russ Diamond introduced a bill that would prohibit the dual-currency model as part of a broader package on skill-game machines. The proposal is still at an early stage, so it is not law and does not yet create a new criminal offense for players.

Even so, Pennsylvania is a particularly important test for the industry. Unlike some states that have moved against sweepstakes casinos, Pennsylvania already has a large, licensed online casino market overseen by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (PGCB). A formal ban would eliminate the competition with online casinos.

What HB 2801 proposes

Rep. Russ Diamond, who chairs the House Gaming Oversight Committee, introduced HB 2801 on September 24. The official bill page lists a new section titled “sweepstakes games prohibited” among the proposed changes to Pennsylvania’s interactive-gaming rules.

According to trade-press coverage of the proposal, HB 2801 would make it unlawful to operate, promote, or assist sweepstakes games in Pennsylvania. Reported penalties range from $50,000 to $500,000 per violation. The bill would also give the PGCB and the Pennsylvania Attorney General authority to investigate and issue cease-and-desist orders.

Those details could still change. HB 2801 is a proposal, not an enacted ban. Bills are amended regularly, particularly when they are part of a wider gaming package.

For players comparing the best sweepstakes casinos while the legislation is pending, this source can be used as a starting point. Availability can change quickly when regulators issue notices, operators adjust their restricted-state lists, or lawmakers move a bill forward.

That does not mean Pennsylvania is a settled market, however. The PGCB has already taken action against sweepstakes operators. In 2025, the board told lawmakers that it had issued 18 cease-and-desist letters to platforms it considered unlicensed online gambling operations.

Why Pennsylvania is a significant test

Several states have moved against sweepstakes casinos despite not having a large legal online-casino sector. New York, for example, enacted a 2025 prohibition on dual-currency games that simulate casino play. California also adopted a broad ban through AB 831, while New Jersey, Connecticut, and Montana have taken steps to prohibit similar platforms.

Pennsylvania is different because it already operates a substantial regulated iGaming market. The state permits licensed online casino games through operators connected to approved land-based casinos, and the PGCB monitors those businesses, their suppliers and their compliance obligations.

The financial scale of that market helps explain the political pressure. The PGCB reported that Pennsylvania’s iGaming sector generated $2.93 billion in revenue during fiscal year 2025/26, an 18.42% increase on the previous year. The state collected approximately $1.34 billion in iGaming tax revenue. The regulator’s full report recorded both figures.

Across all forms of regulated gaming, Pennsylvania reported more than $7 billion in gross revenue and over $3.09 billion in taxes and fees during the same fiscal year. That includes land-based casinos, online casino games, sports betting, video gaming terminals and fantasy sports.

The state therefore has a clear interest in protecting the licensed market. Legal operators pay taxes, hold approvals and operate under rules covering advertising, responsible gambling, technical standards and consumer protection. Sweepstakes platforms argue that their promotional structure places them outside conventional gambling law, but Pennsylvania regulators have questioned that distinction.

A ban inside a skill-games bill

The sweepstakes provision is not the main purpose of HB 2801. Diamond introduced HB 2801 and its companion, HB 2802, primarily to create a legal framework for skill-game machines.

The timing is linked to a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that classified certain skill-game machines as slot machines under existing state law. Businesses operating those machines have faced an October deadline to remove them unless they hold the necessary authorisation. Recent reporting on the proposal says the proposed framework would place skill games under PGCB oversight and allow a limited number of machines in venues such as clubs, liquor-licensed bars, restaurants and qualified truck stops.

The package would reportedly tax skill-game revenue at 20%. It also proposes a yearly gaming dividend of at least $702 for eligible homeowners, although that element is part of the wider political debate rather than a settled policy.

Including sweepstakes casinos in the same bill has practical consequences. The proposal is dealing with several competing interests at once:

Licensed casinos want unregulated competitors restricted.
Skill-game businesses want a route into the legal market.
Lawmakers want to address the court’s ruling before the deadline.
State agencies want clearer enforcement powers.
Players and operators need certainty about which products are permitted.

A bill carrying this many issues may change substantially during negotiations. The sweepstakes section could remain intact, be rewritten, or be removed altogether. It could also be separated from the skill-games provisions and considered in a narrower bill.

Where sweepstakes casinos are banned

The legal picture is changing quickly, and “legal” is not always a simple label.

Several states have already passed laws aimed directly at sweepstakes casinos. Others rely on existing gambling or lottery laws. In a few states, regulators have taken enforcement action even before lawmakers have adopted a sweepstakes-specific statute.

A few examples illustrate the range of approaches:

State	Current direction	What it means
California	Broad ban in force	AB 831 targets online sweepstakes games that use a dual-currency model and prohibit operators from offering or facilitating them.
Connecticut	Ban adopted	The state has prohibited online sweepstakes casino-style platforms.
Montana	Ban adopted	Legislation brought sweepstakes-style internet gaming within the state’s prohibited gambling framework.
New Jersey	Direct prohibition	New Jersey has moved against promotional sweepstakes gaming involving redeemable virtual currencies.
New York	Ban and enforcement	New York has taken action against dual-currency sweepstakes games and operators serving residents.
Washington	Effectively prohibited	Strict online-gambling rules make the conventional redeemable sweepstakes model unavailable.

This list is illustrative rather than exhaustive. The relevant question is not only whether a state appears on a general “legal states” list. Players also need to check whether the specific brand accepts residents, whether the operator has voluntarily restricted the state, and whether a recent enforcement action has changed its position.

States can also use different terminology. One law may refer to sweepstakes games, another to internet gambling or online casino-style games, and another to games involving a virtual currency that can be redeemed for money or prizes. That makes simplified nationwide summaries unreliable.

Where the model remains available

Sweepstakes casinos continue to operate in many states, but “available” does not necessarily mean “fully legal and permanently protected.” States such as Florida, Texas, Virginia, Georgia, and Ohio are often cited as examples of markets where major sweepstakes brands continue to operate, subject to operator-specific restrictions and changing legal interpretations.

In these states, the model typically relies on three features:

A free method of entry.
A distinction between entertainment currency and prize-linked currency.
Rules stating that purchases are not necessary to enter or win.

That structure is central to the industry’s legal argument. It is also why the product is not identical to a licensed online casino. A player may experience casino-style games, but the operator’s legal position depends on the promotional mechanics, the terms of entry, and the state’s interpretation of gambling law.

How far has HB 2801 progressed?

The bill remains at an early stage. The Pennsylvania legislature’s page shows a referral to committee on September 24, with no recorded vote and no completed committee action at the time of writing. The official legislative record should be treated as the definitive source for future amendments and votes.

The immediate political pressure is connected to the skill-games deadline. Lawmakers must first decide whether they want to regulate those machines, prohibit them, or leave the existing legal position in place. That debate may determine how much attention the sweepstakes section receives.

The reported November 30 legislative-session deadline gives lawmakers a limited window, but deadlines do not guarantee passage. A bill can be amended, delayed, or carried over into a later legislative session.

The most likely stages to watch are:

Committee hearings and amendments.
A decision on whether the sweepstakes language remains in the bill.
Votes in the House and Senate.
Any changes made during negotiations between the chambers.
The governor’s decision if the bill reaches the desk.
Guidance from the PGCB after enactment.

Until those steps occur, it is too early to describe Pennsylvania as a banned state.

Meta:

Pennsylvania HB 2801: Could the State Ban Sweepstakes Casinos?

Pennsylvania’s HB 2801 would prohibit dual-currency sweepstakes casinos. Here is what the bill says, why it is different from other states, and where it stands.