Legal Online Poker California

Currently, online poker in California is not legal. For more than 10 years, several attempts have been made by legislators to legalize it, but with no success. With so many gaming interests in the state – including horse tracks, poker rooms, and tribal casinos – satisfying all interests with an. Apparently there will be no regulated online poker coming to the state of California this year. On Tuesday, Steve Ruddock — widely regarded as one of the most connected writers in the poker industry — gave his take on the current status of licensed online poker in CA referring to it as a “nightmare.”. There have been attempts to bring in new gambling regulation, but California doesn’t offer legal online poker sites yet, although the state boasts some of the best live card rooms in the world. You can still play online poker in California, but you need to be more selective with where you play. Can I play real money poker online in California? California Legal Poker 2021. Pop quiz: Which US state boasts one of the best cardrooms in the world and has produced some of the game's best players, but is yet to pass regulated online poker? Answer: California. Looking for legal poker sites in California? With two bills proposed, and with a population likely to embrace newly regulated legal poker sites in California, the. Online poker in Pennsylvania is played strictly on licensed sites, and owners paid huge application fee to offer these games to public. Participating is safe for both sides - casino and player. Fast and guaranteed payments via different methods are distinctive features of online poker for real money, in case you succeed in game, of course.

California has long been a paradise for poker players. There are dozens of poker rooms operating around the state, and the list includes some of the largest venues in the world. So, it’s understandably annoying that the Golden State can’t get together on legal online poker.

However, California’s size and unique relationship to gambling have created a situation with many stakeholders in conflict with one another. These groups are each powerful enough to stall out most forward progress on the issue.

As frustrating as it is, the plain truth is that there’s no real momentum for online poker in California at this time. For the moment, the only option available to Californians is sweepstakes poker sites.

PlayCA is your one-stop-shop for all the latest on California’s progress (or lack thereof) toward legal online poker. As developments occur, we will be sure to update you on what’s happening, what’s moving, and when you might be able to play real money poker online.

Play online poker in California at Global Poker

Sweepstakes poker

For right now, the only legal online poker option available in California is to play on sweepstakes poker sites. The top sweepstakes site active today is Global Poker, but let’s start by discussing what a sweepstakes site is and how to spot one.

What are sweepstakes, and how do they work?

Everyone has played sweepstakes at one point or another. Whether it’s the Monopoly game at McDonald’s or the Publishers Clearing House giveaways, we have all played for the minute chance at great wealth or prizes. For most, it may seem doubtful that these sites are anything but scams.

However, the good news is that they must, by law, award their advertised prizes to be a legal entity in most US states. As hard as it may be to believe, someone in the U.S. is winning a boat by sticking game pieces to a board that they acquired in a drive-through. The PCH Prize Patrol does go around awarding people $7,000 per week for life.

So, the first absolute must for legal sweepstakes is that someone has to win the prize. The second concrete rule is that it must be possible to win the grand prize without spending a dime. Sweepstakes must maintain a path to the jackpot that does not involve any kind of purchase whatsoever.

That rule is why any sweepstakes you play will have the disclaimer that there is “no purchase to play.” The organizers are not being generous, if they were to require any kind of payment, the sweepstakes would immediately become classified as a lottery, and would, therefore, be illegal in many states.

How does Global Poker work in CA?

Those two rules might seem to end the possibility of online poker play. However, sites like Global Poker have found a way to stay within compliance of the law to offer great poker action.

Since Global is the main sweepstakes poker site, we will discuss its specifics. However, be sure to look for similar rules at other sites, should you choose to play them. If there are no mechanisms designed to ensure compliance with the rules above, then the site is likely not kosher.

Global’s first bit of compliance comes in the form of its dual-currency system. For the convertible cash on-site to be eligible for withdrawal and transition into actual dollars, it cannot be possible to buy the site’s cash equivalent.

Instead, Global allows players to buy however much of its play currency as they wish. This currency is called Gold Coins, and neither has monetary value nor can be withdrawn from the site.

With most Gold Coin purchases, a player can also receive a quantity of the other currency, $weeps Coins, for free. This currency can be converted into a withdrawable instrument at the player’s discretion. Both currencies are valid for playing Global Poker games, although never at the same time.

However, it is also necessary for Global Poker to have a pathway that requires no purchase whatsoever. So, it is possible to receive $weeps Coins by sending a handwritten request to the Global Poker corporate office. This request must be in your handwriting and verifiable as your request.

Once they receive and verify the request, they will put a small amount of $weeps Coins into your account onsite. These coins are ready for play at that point.

Why legal online poker in California is stuck in limbo

Of course, with all the news about gambling expansions in other states, Californians could justifiably be confused about why the state cannot get going with fully legal online poker. After all, neither poker nor gambling, in general, are taboo commodities in the Golden State. There are dozens of poker venues scattered across the land, and most of them have steady player bases.

Too many fingers in the pie

The problem is that there are four main groups of people who have a stake in any kind of gambling expansion in California. These four groups are often at odds with one another and cannot agree on how any expansion would work.

There have been legislative movements to expand online gambling in the state since 2008. All of them have failed because each major stakeholder (and its political influence) goes a different direction.

The first group that has to be in any discussion along these lines are the Native American tribes within the state. California’s tribal interests earn billions of dollars annually from their land-based casinos.

These casinos are the only true venues of their kind in the state. The tribes vigorously defend both their exclusive right to offer the games that they do and their position at the table for any future gambling revenues. They argue that they have what amounts to a right of first refusal because of their sovereignty and compacts with the state.

Meanwhile, the California cardrooms feel as though they would be the natural stewards of online poker in the state. Given how much revenue they generate for their localities, it’s an argument that cannot be immediately dismissed. For instance, 70% of the City of Commerce’s tax revenue comes from Commerce Casino.

The state’s horse tracks also want to have their piece of any new pie that comes about. Horse racing in California, as is the case in other states, is declining, and the state’s industry has enough political clout to argue that it needs online poker to bolster its bottom lines and save the industry.

Finally, the state government itself, via the state lottery, might want to keep the management and resulting profits from online poker in-house, so to speak. Since other state lotteries often find themselves as the de facto regulators for gambling in the state, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that the lottery would oversee online poker.

Lack of legislative precedent

Online poker expansion in California is also hurt by the fact that, for all of its cardrooms and activity, there isn’t much in the way of laws, rules, and regulations overseeing the industry. The only major requirement for most cardroom venues in the state is that the games must generally be banked by players, rather than the rooms themselves.

However, cardrooms have found a way to sidestep this requirement and offer games that go far beyond poker itself. By employing proposition players, they have found a way to host all kinds of card-based games, including poker, baccarat, and pai gow poker.

The cardrooms have used this loophole for decades now without any real pushback from the government. Attempts to crack down have not yielded any measurable results

This is a problem for lawmakers because of how laws are typically written. Most bills build off the existing legal environment and seek to confine the change to a specific portion of the law. Because there is no law to change in California, lawmakers are fairly stuck.

A broad approach won’t work, either. A law to address the loophole would, in the eyes of tribal interests, legitimize the existence of the loophole in the first place. Since tribal interests feel that they are the only legitimate gaming in the state, they have no interest in seeing a legislative affirmation for the activities of the cardrooms.

At the same time, legislators cannot simply close the loophole, either. The cardrooms are far too valuable as sources of tax revenue for their localities.

All the while, the cardrooms keep hiring prop players and spreading games, while the tribes offer their activities and fume about the cardrooms. It’s a mess, and there’s no clear way out.

Options available in Nevada

For the most part, Californians are relegated to playing on Global Poker or other sweepstakes sites if they want to play online. However, we’d be remiss if we didn’t mention the opportunity to the east of the state.

As it turns out, traditional gambling mecca Nevada also has online poker. Any Californian who wishes to slip across the state lines can take part in the Silver State’s offerings if they choose.

The only site of note in Nevada is WSOP.com. The other site in the state, Real Gaming Online Poker, suffers from extremely low traffic and terrible instability in terms of maintaining active games.

As the online arm of the world-famous tournament brand, WSOP.com has great action, especially for tournaments, and even offers the opportunity to play for actual WSOP bracelets exclusively onsite.

However, it is necessary to travel across state lines to play. So, the feasibility of playing on a Nevada poker site will vary according to each Californian’s living situation. But it bears mention as an option until California can get itself sorted out concerning online poker.

Online poker vs. live poker

Whether you are playing on Global Poker, another sweepstakes site, or have made the journey to Nevada to play, you need to know about some key differences between playing poker live and playing online.

Speed

The biggest difference between online and live poker is the sheer speed discrepancy. Online poker tables can sometimes deal more than 100 hands per hour, while the fastest live tables would probably only be able to manage 30 or so.

Part of the speed found online comes from the fact there is no live dealer. Also, you will find online is the use of a play clock. In most cases, you will have only a few seconds to make your decisions.

While it is possible to ask for more time, this feature is always limited and finite. By contrast, it is not uncommon to allow for some several-minute delays in live poker if a player has a big decision to make. Only a request from another player for a “clock” can set a hard-and-fast time limit on a live player’s decision.

Because the online game deals roughly three times the number of hands that a live game can, you will have three times as many hands to see and decisions to make. It’s also important to realize that the dreaded moments of bad luck in poker (bad beats and coolers) will also happen far more often online.

This last bit is why there is perpetual grumbling in the poker community about players receiving unfair deals or playing in rigged games. However, given that the sites use random number generators to shuffle, the online game is fairer than its live counterpart. The truth is simply that more hands mean more chances for bad luck to occur.

Skill

The speed of the game and the increased number of hands has also had a profound effect on the level of play that you will find online. Because they get so much practice, online players at any given buy-in level are usually far more proficient than live players at the same level.

You should probably start at a lower level than you usually do when you first visit a site. A winning player at a particular blind level in live games could quickly find be chopped up by the increased competition if they play in the same game online.

Until you get used to the speed, pace of play, and overall proficiency of your competition, it is highly recommended that you take it easy to begin. Nothing is stopping you from moving up later on.

Legal Online Poker Real Money

Multi-tabling

Finally, it’s important to note that the physical realities of playing live mean that you can only play on a single table at any time. Online poker players do not suffer from a similar limitation, and many play in multiple games at once.

If you choose to play on multiple tables, realize that, along with the potential winnings, the potential for poor variance and losing also increases. If you have any reservations about or known leaks in your game, it’s probably a good idea to hold off on playing multiple tables at once until you hammer out the rough spots.

Also, if you happen to notice that one or more of the players at your table are also playing elsewhere, it’s a double-edged sword for you. On the one hand, they are likely to be distracted and/or unable to keep track of every detail in the game at hand.

However, multi-tablers who you often see tend to be pretty good players themselves. After all, they felt confident enough in their game to divide their attention.

Popular real money poker games

You can find many of your favorite poker games in online poker rooms. Most of the games from your childhood and friendly games are playable on poker sites.

There’s no question that the most popular game in the world is no-limit Texas hold’em. Regardless of what online poker application you choose, you will be able to find an NLHE game, if nothing else.

Other popular poker games commonly found online include the following:

• Limit hold’em
• Pot-limit Omaha
• Limit Omaha
• Omaha Hi/Lo (Eight or Better)
• Stud

Some poker sites, like PokerStars, have even been known to unveil their games or variants. The mix of games depends on the site. Since Global Poker is the most likely choice for most Californians, there is a game that deserves an explanation.

Crazy Pineapple

Global Poker, the most prominent sweepstakes poker site, has three different games available for play onsite. Two of those games, no-limit Texas hold’em and pot-limit Omaha, are well-known commodities and are not uncommon.

However, the third game on the site, Crazy Pineapple, is a bit more esoteric for most poker players. So, if you’re curious about playing this game, here’s how it works.

Crazy Pineapple is a variant of Texas hold’em. Players compose their hands from a combination of hole cards and community cards, and there are four rounds of betting.

The key difference is that Crazy Pineapple begins with each player receiving three cards, rather than two. Then, after the round of preflop betting, the player must choose one of the three cards to discard before continuing in the hand.

In terms of strategy, more cards usually mean stronger hands are required to win. While not quite at the same level as Omaha, Crazy Pineapple will typically yield more possibilities for making a premium five-card hand.

If you have a chance, you might give Crazy Pineapple a try. It’s a nice option, if for no other reason than as a palate cleanser from all those hands of hold’em.

Can California tribes offer online poker?

Californians might be curious about whether online poker could come to them differently. After all, with so many Native American tribes in the state and the tribes at the forefront of gambling in California, it would make sense that they might have a claim regarding the ability to offer online poker.

Unfortunately, the answer is no. The courts have ruled definitively that California tribes cannot proceed with online poker until the state does so as well.

The Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel attempted to push things forward in late 2014. The tribe opened a real-money bingo operation to measure the legal environment for expansion into online poker. They even went so far as to house the servers for the site on tribal lands and were careful to confine operations to that property.

As expected, the state quickly moved to enjoin the tribe from operating the site, declaring it in violation of California law. Needless to say, the tribe decided to fight the battle in court.

After four long years, the Ninth District Court of Appeals issued what is likely the final word on the matter in 2018. The site does violate California state law.

Now, a single glimmer of hope might be to argue that bingo and poker are different types of games. However, given the definitive answer the tribe received, it’s unlikely to be worth pursuing any kind of victory on the semantics of the case.

The bottom line is that online poker remains illegal in the state of California for everyone, even those who might have an inside track to it.

Poker rooms in California

Live poker is legal in California. The Golden State now boasts some of the biggest and best poker rooms in the country. There are around 70 brick-and-mortar card rooms in California.

Commerce Casino

The Commerce Casino, in LA, is one of the biggest card rooms in the world. It houses more than 250 tables and hosts regular hold ’em, Omaha and Stud cash games and tournaments. The Commerce also offers blackjack and three-card poker tables.

The Commerce is a significant stop on the World Poker Tour, the WPT LA Poker Classic. The LA Poker Classic costs $10,000 to enter and regularly attracts some of the most prominent players in the world.

Bicycle Hotel & Casino

“The Bike” in BellGardens, is also one of the largest cardrooms in the world.

Its poker room is more than 100,000 square feet and features 185 tables spreading Texas Hold ’em, Omaha, 7-Card Stud and MexicanPoker.

The Bike is also a regular host for the World Poker Tour. The Legends of Poker event has been held at the Bike for years.

Bay 101 Casino

The Bay 101, in SanJose, has been operating since the 1920s.

The Bay 101 offers daily tournaments and cash games including Omaha Hi-Lo, No Limit Hold ’em and Stud.

The card room is also a host stop on the World Poker Tour. The Bay 101 Shooting Star takes place at the poker room every March and costs more than $5,000 to enter.

Full list of poker rooms in California

California online poker legislative history

The illegality of online poker in California is largely enumerated by a single section in the California Penal Code. Section 330 of the Code declares that a person who involves themselves with “any banking or percentage game played with cards” (among other things) is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to criminal sanction.

For more than a decade, California lawmakers submitted bills to legalize online poker every single year. Capturing the history of every single bill’s ultimate demise would be both onerous and depressing.

There were at least 15 different bills put into the legislative process over the years that would have allowed for online poker in the state. All of them have failed.

In the past few years, it has seemed as though the fervor to pass such a law has waned. Quite frankly, the eyes of most legislatures are on sports betting now, because of its new legality and greater potential for profit.

At this point, it’s probably unlikely that online poker will come to California before sports betting. Since the timeframe for the latter’s debut remains completely unclear, the launch of online poker in California must reside in the same category for now.

Legal Online Poker Sites California

Federal gambling regulations

California card rooms and tribal casinos can’t launch online poker rooms because of the federal Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, or UIGEA. The UIGEA was put on the books in 2006 and prohibits American businesses from knowingly processing payments for any wagers placed over the internet.

The UIGEA doesn’t apply to licensed companies operating in states that explicitly legalized internet gambling, which is why Nevada, New Jersey, and Delaware are allowed to run online poker sites with this law still in effect.

Numerous California Assemblymen and Senators, such as Roderick Wright, Lou Correa, Lloyd Levine, Mike Gatto, Adam Gray, Isadore Hall, and Reggie Jones-Sawyer, have tried pushing for similar regulations to be introduced in the Golden State since 2008, but none of their proposals have gained enough support to make it to the governor’s desk.

Native American online poker

In November 2014, the Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel tribe tried to take matters into its own hands. The tribe launched a real-money bingo site called Desert Rose Bingo in an attempt to test the UIGEA prohibition and potentially lay the groundwork for a future Native American internet poker project.

The servers that powered the site were located within the reservation, and the tribe maintained that it had the right to offer its gambling products online because the compact signed with the state authorized it to offer Class II games on tribal land.

The government immediately filed an injunction, forcing the site to be temporarily shut down. The legal battle lasted four years, and in 2018, the Ninth District Court of Appeals ruled that the operation was illegal.

The judge agreed with the tribe regarding its jurisdiction over gambling on Indian land but noted that the act of placing a wager took place elsewhere on the territory of California, constituting a violation of the UIGEA.

This ruling proved without a shadow of a doubt that even the Native Californian tribes would not be able to launch legal poker sites without statewide legalization.

California Penal Code

Over the years, California poker players became discouraged with the lack of progress on the legislative front, and many turned to offshore poker platforms to get their internet poker fix. After all, these platforms can’t be shut down by the government as they are typically based in places like Panama or Antigua.

In the world of offshore gaming, the UIGEA doesn’t prevent you from enjoying the game; it merely inconveniences you when you try to make a deposit.

Unfortunately, the legality of playing on offshore sites is a contentious issue. Section 330 of the California Penal Code states that participating in any banking or percentage game constitutes a misdemeanor and is punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

However, experts on gambling law can’t seem to agree on whether online poker offered by offshore platforms can be classified as a banking or percentage game. Pondering the technicalities of this issue should probably be left to people like Chuck Humphrey or Nelson Rose – we just want to emphasize that determining whether an online player can be punished if caught is impossible without precedent.

California online poker history

2018

As expected, 2018 was not the year for California online poker. For the first time in a decade, no poker-related proposals were put forward during the legislative session. The national gambling debate shifted to sports betting after SCOTUS overturned the federal PASPA ban in May.

Unfortunately, California needs to amend its constitution before its lawmakers can start working on a bookmaking bill. Assemblyman Adam Gray proposed putting this issue on the November 2018 ballot, but his initiative didn’t gain enough support before the elections.

As a result, Californians won’t get to vote on sports betting legalization until November 2020. If the online poker camp decides to stick to Jones-Sawyer’s plan and pair its new bill with this issue, 2019 will be another year in which we won’t see any meaningful legislative action.

On the judicial front, the Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel tribe lost the Desert Rose Bingo case in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The online bingo operation that was supposed to pave the way for tribal internet poker was deemed illegal. The court dismissed the argument that all servers were located on tribal land and based its decision on the fact that the act of betting occurred elsewhere.

2017

California Assemblymember Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer introduced AB 1677in February 2017. The goal of the bill was to legalize and regulate online poker in California. No wording in the bill even addressed the operator suitability issue. It looked like an attempt to start over.

Two months later, with no real movement on the bill, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians withdrew from its alliance with PokerStars.

California legislators never even got around to discussing online poker and when last day for the State Senate or Assembly to pass bills came on Sept. 15, California online poker was dead again.

2016

In 2016, California came closer to passing legislation that would legalize and regulate online poker than it ever has before. Yet still, by the time the state’s legislative session ended in August, no bill had passed.

As it had been in the past, the biggest stumbling block for online poker legislation in the state in 2016 was operator suitability.

A tribal coalition led by Pechanga and Agua Caliente was pushing for a 10-year ban against PokerStars and parent company Amaya. PokerStars itself, alongside in-state partners like the Morongo and San Manuel tribes and Commerce, Bicycle and Hawaiian Gardens cardrooms, wanted regulators to make the decision, but appeared willing to accept a five-year penalty or $20 million payment in lieu of it.

In June, an online poker bill passed through the State Assembly’s Appropriations Committee. It was the furthest an online poker bill had ever gone in California. Then-Assemblyman Adam Gray, author of the bill, introduced amendments supporting a five-year ban for persons that took bets in California after Dec. 31, 2006. Depending on how the language in the amendments was interpreted, it may have also included a lifetime ban for operators that did the same.

Neither side seems happy with it. PokerStars went from calling the tribal coalition obstructionists, to standing in the way of the online poker bill itself.

The bill never made it through Assembly, Senate, or came anywhere close to making it to the Governor’s desk.

The year 2016 started with the Horse Racing industry, Tribal casinos, and online poker operators all on different sides of the online poker issue in California. It ended much the same way.

2015

In many ways, 2015 is similar to the story of 2014, with the notable difference that political attention to the issue of online poker began earlier in the year and appears to have greater force behind it.

There are currently two primary competing visions for online poker in California – AB 9 and AB 167 – both of which sit with the Governmental Organization Committee in the Assembly.

There is an additional legislative vehicle for online poker in the Assembly: AB 431, sponsored by Assemblyman Adam Gray and co-authored by State Sen. Isadore Hall. AB 431 is currently a “shell” bill, meaning it contains little in the way of actual details or language.

You can read more about and track each bill using California’s online legislative information system.

As in past years, the key divisions revolve around who is eligible for licensure as an online poker operator.

2014

In February 2014, two online poker bills were announced. SB 1366would allow online poker only. It included a bad actor clause that would forbid any company from operating in the state if it took action from U.S. players after December 31, 2006.

AB 2291 was a similar bill. One difference is that the bad actor clause was left open for future debate.

On April 23, 2014, the California Assembly Committee on Governmental Organization held a hearing to discuss online poker. Topics included the history of online poker in the U.S., testimony from executives involved in the regulated industry, as well as views from tribal and commercial gaming companies.

The hearing appeared to be a positive for the online poker industry. One opponent of gambling in general was cut off from his speech. Andy Abboud, VP of Government Affairs for Las Vegas Sands, had his company’s motives questioned by the committee. All members of the committee that spoke appeared to be educated about the online poker industry.

Prior to 2014

Online poker has been an issue in California for nearly a decade at this point. The state has seen numerous bills prior to the handful currently circulating in Sacramento.

Six bills in the past had been introduced but failed to pass in the California Legislature. Those bills were the Internet Poker Consumer Protection Act of 2013, SB 51, SB 678, SB 1463, SB 40 and SB 45. These bills would have legalized, regulated and taxed online poker in California.

There is no law in California specifying the legality or illegality of online poker. After many years of trying to regulate internet poker, there is still no change in California’s poker laws.

Latest Developments Regarding Online Poker in California

State Summaries: 2018 > 2017 > 2016 > 2015 > 2014 > 2013

Despite his decision not to introduce a California online poker bill in 2018, Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer said he remains optimistic about a combined sports betting/online poker bill in 2019. Jones-Sawyer said that much depends on the outcome of the US Supreme Court’s case, Murphy v. NCAA, which is expected to decide the future of federal sports betting law for the near-future.

If the SCOTUS strikes down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) as unconstitutional, it would open the door for California casinos to offer legal sportsbooks. Such a development would be so lucrative for land-based casinos, that a combine sportsbook/online poker bill might succeed.

Jones-Sawyer said of the prospects for California online poker in 2019,

“It is active because the Supreme Court ruling will make it more viable. That’s what is happening now. We will get there, we just may go through a different door than the traditional one. Sports wagering raises all tides.”

Going forward, the plan is to wait until sports betting is legalized and try to push online poker with a larger gambling expansion bill in 2019. Until then, the fight for online poker in California is on a permanent hold.

The Road to Legalizing Online Poker in California

Legislators in California have been trying to legalize online poker for more than 10 years. While there has been some progress, there is still no legal internet poker in the state.

The process began after the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act was passed by the US Congress and signed into law in 2006. When PartyPoker exited the market, California began to consider legalizing online poker within its borders. As one of the states with the largest percentages of online poker players, combined with the strong land-based poker market, legislators knew the market could be a lucrative one.

Below is a summary of the various Bills introduced, the advocates supporting online poker and a synopsis of events over the last 5 years.

State Summary: California 2018

No one introduced a 2018 California online poker bill, including Reggie Jones-Sawyer, Adam Gray, or Mike Gatto. It appears all have decided the effort would be futile for 2018. Reggie Jones-Sawyer summed up the California’s iPoker situation in 2018: “There’s some other issues with tribes and cardrooms that probably need to be resolved before we can move forward with this thing. I’m hoping we resolve some of that this year.”

Assemblyman Jones-Sawyer suggested 2018 should be a year of reconciliation, saying, “There’s been a little progress in that area.”

Despite the lack of legislative activity, the Assemblyman suggested that lawmakers are laying the groundwork for a new effort in 2019. Part of the process is allowing emotions to subside, while explaining the economic benefits which everyone could reap from online poker. Jones-Sawyer said,

“We’ve gone through extensive research and a really robust discussion talking to proponents and opponents. The process was very contentious, and some people still need some time to heal.”

He added,

“The best thing that came out of those discussions was the fact that we were discussing it. People were very open and honest about their feelings for online poker. I think we provided, here in our office, a safe place to express their feelings.”

State Summary: California 2017

In 2017, Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer introduced a new bill: The Internet Poker Consumer Protection Act. Jones-Sawyer sought to gain support from the California horse racing industry by offering to give 95% of the first $60 million collected to California horse tracks. California’s government would collect a $12.5 million Internet poker licensing fee for a gaming license which would extend for 7 years. Other elements of Mike Gatto’s and Adam Gray’s previous bills were included in the Internet Poker Consumer Protection Act’s language.

Once again, the bad actor clauses caused the bill’s defeat. In many ways, it was a regression, because Reggie Jones-Sawyer did not include a 5-year ban, but instead called on the California Gaming Commission to decide on PokerStars’ fate, much like Mike Gatto’s 2015-2016 bill. This received a flat rejection from the Pechanga-Agua Caliente-Pala group.

State Summary: California 2016

Mike Gatto said in a press release that Assembly Bill 9 followed “time-tested business practices”. Calling on the various sides to compromise for the sake of the lost revenues to their gaming operations and the state, Gatto added, “The status quo is a lost opportunity. California could receive significant revenue for merely regulating and legitimizing an industry that Californians already participate in but send their dollars overseas. California has led the world in computer and Internet innovation, and there is no good reason why we can’t continue to lead with a sensible online-poker framework.”

The California “Bad Actor” clause effects Pokerstars chance of entering a regulated poker market.

AB 9 failed to move the Pechanga coalition. The fact of the matter was, any gaming group PokerStars partnered with was likely to collect 70% of the online poker revenues. It simply made no sense for those not allied with PokerStars to allow them into California, especially since those parties probably had a legitimate sense of grievance PokerStars had collected hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal cash during its bad actor period. Though 80% of online gamblers would not have visited a land-based casino in their state anyway, the remaining 20% of online poker players might not make as many trips to tribal casinos in California — so AB9 did not make economic sense for those tribes in opposition.

Those backing PokerStars had other issues by the spring of 2016: Amaya Group was mired in legal troubles. Jason Baazov, CEO of Amaya, was being investigated (along with 12 others) for insider trading stemming from the $4.9 billion buyout of PokerStars. Baazov had to step down from his position in the company, which was another PR black eye for the PokerStars coalition.

San Manuel Withdraws PokerStars Support

The situation caused the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians to withdraw support for the PokerStars alliance. Jacob Coin, San Manuel Band Executive Director of Public Affairs, sent a letter to his former political allies saying the tribe was withdrawing support for measures like Mike Gatto’s AB 9. One anonymous California tribal gaming executive told the Sacramento Bee that the San Manuel tribe’s decision was a “titanic shift in the landscape” of California online poker.

AB 1437: California Daily Fantasy Sports

Meanwhile, California Assembly Governmental Organization Committee Chairman Adam Gray introduced a daily fantasy sports legalization bill: AB 1437 or the “Internet Fantasy Sports Game Protection Act”. Early on, AB 1437 had tremendous support, as it passed in the General Assembly by a 62-1 vote in January 2016.

California Assembly Chairman Adam Gray Introduced AB1437

Fantasy sports legislation has the advantage that many lawmakers play fantasy sports and are less likely to be swayed by anti-DFS lobbyists. That does not always apply, because the California tribal casinos began opposing the bill in February 2017. Adam Gray’s bill failed to gain support in the California Senate, despite a clause that would pay a stipend to California racetracks from the DFS fund.

Adam Gray’s legislation contained another innovation that some thought might satisfy all sides, and which did get the sides talking. AB 1437 included a softened bad actor clause that would ban PokerStars from California online poker for 5 years. This presumably would give its competitors a 5-year head start on building a player database and customer loyalty. John Pappas of the Poker Players Alliance criticized the clause. Pappas even challenged Adam Gray’s contention that the 5-year ban was the result of negotiation by the two sides. Whatever the case, AB 1437 went down to defeat like all other California online poker bills since 2010.

State Summary: California 2015

Online Poker California Real Money

Sen. Edwin Correa once again introduced a bill, this time called “Authorization and Regulation of Internet Poker and Consumer Protection Act of 2015”. Once again, the bill contained a bad actor clause. Once again, the two factions could not agree on whether to ban PokerStars or allow it into the state. An attempt at negotiation took place in June 2015, when the various Native American tribes met to discuss the legislative stalemate. Nothing came of the meeting, so Edwin Correa’s 2015 version of SB 1366 failed, too.

Reggie Jones-Sawyer tinkered with AB 2991 to create a refined bill he hoped would pass muster with both sides: Assembly Bill 167. Assemblyman Jones-Sawyer joined with Assemblyman Mike Gatto to sponsor AB 167, which read: “The person [who] has been convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction of a felony consisting of either having accepted a bet over the Internet in violation of United States or California law, or having aided or abetted that unlawful activity.”

The term “person” was the key element of Assembly Bill 167. In August 2014, Amaya Gaming of Montreal, Canada had bought PokerStars’ parent company for $4.9 billion. Amaya’s CEO Jason Baazov now controlled PokerStars, instead of the executive staff which defied the UIGEA and had been indicted in the 2011 Black Friday indictments. Thus, the bill would allow PokerStars to enter the California online poker market, because Amaya’s executives had nothing to do with PokerStars’ role as a supposed “bad actor”. Pechanga’s and Agua Caliente’s leaders were no more impressed by AB 167 than previous bills, so the measure failed.

AB 167: New Bad Actor Language

Assemblyman Mike Gatto attempts to save online poker with Assembly Bill 9.

In December 2015, Assemblyman Mike Gatto made a lone attempt to rescue California online poker: Assembly Bill 9. He modified the wording of AB 167, so AB9 stated that any company that “has purchased or acquired the covered assets of any entity” is still considered a bad actor. Gatto’s innovation is the bad actor would not be banned outright.

Instead, the Californian Gaming Commission would be given the authority to waive any penalties against a bad actor if “by clear and convincing evidence” showed the license applicant deserved a California online poker license. PokerStars could enter California if the Gaming Commission decided it deserved entrance. The bill was introduced late in the year, so Mike Gatto would have to wait until 2016 to receive his answer.

State Summary: California 2014

Edwin Correa introduced Senate Bill 1366, also known as the “Authorization and Regulation of Internet Poker and Consumer Protection Act of 2014”. This online poker bill once again contained a “bad actor” clause to ban PokerStars from California online poker. A coalition of California tribal casino operators supported SB 1366, led the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, the Agua Caliente Tribe, and the Pala Tribe.

Opposition to SB 1366 came from The Morongo Tribe of Cabazon and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indian, along with California commercial poker rooms the Bicycle Club, the Commerce Club, and Hawaiian Gardens. The Morongo Tribe and the Bicycle Casino had signed partnership deals with PokerStars, the world’s leading online poker site.

PokerStars generates 70% of the Internet poker revenue in the global card playing market. Its huge player pool and popular poker software is an unbeatable combination. PokerStars’ inclusion in the California online poker market would give the Morongo Tribe and the commercial poker clubs a massive advantage, so the Pechanga, Pala, and Agua Caliente tribes joined to block PokerStars’ inclusion in California gaming.

This would remain an unbridgeable rift between the two sides, dooming Edwin Correa’s legislation in 2013, 2014, and 2015. Meanwhile, a new California lawmaker joined the action: Reggie Jones-Sawyer.

Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer proposed AB 2991, another attempt to legalize online poker. Jones-Sawyer, who represents South Los Angeles, would sponsor similar iPoker bills in 2014, 2015, and 2017. In August 2014, though, both Edwin Correa and Reggie Jones-Sawyer pulled their poker bills, because of the impasse between California’s land-based gaming operators.

State Summary: California – 2013

State Sen. Roderick Wright supported SB 1485, also known as “Gambling Consumer Protection and Public-Private Partnership Act of 2013”. Senate Bill 1485 would have legalized online poker in California. Sen. Wright had sponsored the “Gambling Consumer Protection and Public-Private Partnership Act of 2012” the previous year, as well as bills in 2010 and 2011.

Like the previous incarnations of Wright’s proposal, the bill did not gain enough support in the California Senate. Roderick Wright’s own legal troubles might have contributed to the defeat, as he would be charged on 8 charges of corruption on January 28, 2014. He would be convicted later in the year, then sentenced to 90 days in jail and banned from public office for life in September 2014.

Pokerstars In California

SB 678: Edwin Correa’s Online Poker Bill

Meanwhile, California State Sen. Edwin Correa introduced SB 678, also known as the “Authorization and Regulation of Internet Poker and Consumer Protection Act of 2013”. Senator Correa’s bill was introduced at the same time that online gambling bills were being passed in Nevada, Delaware, and New Jersey. The consensus opinion suggested the Internet poker act would pass, but factions inside California’s large and complex land-based casino industry split on the issue.

Edwin Correa’s bill differed from Roderick Wright’s in that it had a “bad actor” clause in it, which would have banned PokerStars for its activities from 2007 to 2011, when it accepted US players in defiance of the UIGEA federal ban on online poker. This would become a perennial problem for those who supported California online poker legislation.

Roderick Wright’s and Edwin Correa’s 2013 California online poker bills were supported by former members of the California Online Poker Association (COPA), an organization formed in October 2011 to lobby for legal online poker. COPA originally consisted of tribal casinos and commercial private poker clubs across the state, but its membership split in October 2012 over disagreements in how they saw California’s online poker industry working.

2007 – 2012

Talks began in 2007 but the first official online poker bill was introduced in 2010 by State Senator Roderick Wright. His Internet Gambling Consumer Protection and Public-Private Partnership Act failed to gain momentum that year, but he continued to sponsor the bill for several years going forward.

Problems were apparent from the start on a number of fronts. Most Native American tribes were not prepared to accept online poker as a new facet of their gambling businesses, and the horse racing industry opposed bills because they wanted the opportunity to get in on the online poker action as well, and racetracks were not included in proposed legislation. There were also the significant number of card rooms that wanted to offer poker, as many of them already offered it in their land-based facilities. This put a lot of different interests at the same table for negotiations.

California Poker Laws Pertinent to Online Games

The document – the California Gambling Control Act Business and Professions Code – containing all of the gambling regulations published by the state of California is 552 pages long, 13 of which are simply the table of contents. Since the entire publication deals with gambling laws for the state, we will provide a shorter summary.

California law declares, per the Gambling Control Act, the following:

• California strictly regulates pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing but prohibits commercially-operated lotteries, banked or percentage games, and gambling machines.
• Gambling establishments were first regulated in 1984, now employing more than 20,000 people in California and contributing more than $100 million in taxes and fees to the state government.
• Gambling can be addictive and shouldn’t be promoted or actively legitimized.
• “Unregulated gambling enterprises are inimical to the public health, safety, welfare, and good order. Accordingly, no person has the right to operate a gambling enterprise except as may be expressly permitted by the laws of this state and by the ordinances of local governmental bodies.”
• Only city and county voters can approve new gambling establishments.
• The document regulates businesses that offer otherwise lawful forms of gambling games.
• Gambling should be free from criminal and corruptive elements, conducted honestly and competitively in suitable locations.
• All gambling operations and persons significantly involved must be licensed.
• Gambling establishments must remain open to the general public.
• Licenses and permits are revocable privileges.
• Local governments regulate hours of operation, number of tables, and wagering limits.
• People can be excluded or ejected from gambling establishments.
• Accurate records of all transactions must be kept.

The basis for poker and other card games to be allowed is because the state ruled that they are controlled games when the house is not in charge. For exampled, a banked game, by the law’s definition,

“does not include a controlled game if the published rules of the game feature a player-dealer position and provide that this position must be continuously and systematically rotated amongst each of the participants during the pay of the game, ensure that the player-dealer is able to win or lose only a fixed and limited wager during the play of the game, and preclude the house, another entity, a player, or an observer from maintaining or operating as a bank during the course of the game.”

And it also mentions, “The house shall not occupy the player-dealer position.” For games like 21 or blackjack, a player serves as the house and the dealer simply deals the cards and enforces game rules. For poker, the house is not the bank, and rake collected from each hand is not dependent upon wins or losses.

For other parts of the law, it’s important that gambling is defined as “to deal, operate, carry on, conduct, maintain, or expose for play any controlled game.” And a player is a “patron of a gambling establishment who participates in a controlled game.” Gambling establishments seem to be land-based only.

The internet is mentioned throughout the document but primarily in reference to online fundraisers and raffles, which are prohibited unless authorized by the US Department of Justice.

However, the internet is specified in the Class III Gaming section with reference to gambling on tribal lands. Tribes are not permitted to

“offer such games (banking or percentage card game) through the use of the internet unless others in the state are permitted to do so under state and federal law.”

This reference keeps Native Americans from launching an internet poker site without others in the state being authorized to do the same. The state law must change before tribes will be allowed to offer online poker.

All in all, online poker is not addressed in any state law or under the regulations set forth by the California Gambling Control Commission. The law is specific, however, about tribes not being allowed to offer any card games over the internet. However, the definition of gambling is tricky, as it specifies any controlled game, and the Gambling Control Act is very specific about gambling providers requiring licenses.

Disclaimer: This is not written by an attorney and is not or should not be construed as legal advice. Please consult an attorney for help interpreting these laws as they pertain to any given situation.

Is Gambling Legal in California?

Legal Online Poker In California

Gambling is very prevalent in California. In addition to the lottery, there are racetracks, card rooms, and Indian casinos throughout the state.

There are more than 150 casinos and card rooms within the borders of California, with nearly half of them on Native American reservations. Many of the Indian casinos offer the full casino/resort experience, complete with poker rooms, table games, slot machines, bingo, and electronic games, along with restaurants and hotel accommodations.

More than 100 card rooms offer poker, and other table games are permitted when players are charged fees to play. In essence, players serve as the “house” so they compete against each other and not the traditional house. Those establishments are popular for the card games themselves, but poker is also a big attraction in many of them. The poker rooms are some of the most frequented in the country outside of Las Vegas and Atlantic City, with Commerce Casino (card room) offering more than 200 poker tables, making it the largest poker room in the world.

Pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing was legalized as far back as 1933. World-renowned racetracks are located in Southern California as well, with Hollywood Park and Santa Anita among the most recognized. And some, like Hollywood Park, also offer poker rooms.

As for the Indian casinos, there are 61 tribal governments that have entered into gaming compacts with California for Class III gambling, which puts the California Gambling Control Commission in partnership with California Tribal Gaming Agencies to regulate gambling under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Voters authorized this in 1998, and though some court battles ensued, tribal gaming went into full effect in the year 2000.

Is Online Poker Legal In California 2020

Frequently Asked Questions

Question: Do Californians still play online poker?

Answer: There are many players in California who play online poker on the sites that still cater to US players. They cannot, however, play on sites like PokerStars. Until the state legalizes online poker specifically for its residents, players continue to frequent offshore poker sites like the ones recommended on this page.

Question: Did the Poker Players Alliance push for California online poker?

Legal Online Poker Sites In California

Answer: The PPA played a major role in pushing for online poker legislation over the course of the past 10 years, but the PPA sided with PokerStars and its coalition, as PokerStars had been a major donor to the PPA for much of its existence. When the opposition wanted to lock PokerStars out of the market for at least five years, the PPA was part of the group that opposed it and refused to compromise.

Question: Can individual card rooms offer online poker?

Answer: They cannot offer real-money poker online until the state passes a law authorizing them to do so. Unless the tribes and card rooms are all allowed to participate in that form of online gambling, the card rooms are not permitted to do it and could lose all gambling licensing if they tried.