Written by Derek Loomis
Reviewed by Chloe MarshCalifornia's cardrooms secured an important, if temporary, victory this spring in their long running clash with the state and with tribal gaming interests. A judge granted cardroom operators a preliminary injunction against new regulations issued by the Attorney General, allowing the venues to continue offering their games while the underlying legal dispute plays out.
The regulations at issue were announced by Attorney General Rob Bonta and approved by the state earlier this year. They included rules on the rotation of the player dealer position and on blackjack style games, two areas that sit at the heart of the decades old fight over what cardrooms may legally offer. After the rules took effect, a group of cardrooms and third party proposition player businesses filed legal challenges arguing the regulations would upend their operations.
The Core Dispute
The conflict traces back to Proposition 1A, approved by California voters in 2000, which gave tribal casinos the exclusive right to operate banked card games such as blackjack and baccarat. Cardrooms have long argued that they use a lawful workaround built around third party proposition players, licensed businesses whose employees take on the role of the bank at the table rather than the house itself.
Tribes contend that this arrangement is simply banked gambling in disguise and an infringement on their exclusivity. The state's new regulations were intended to tighten the rules around how the player dealer position rotates and how these games are structured, changes that cardrooms warned could threaten a significant share of their revenue.
We note that this is only the latest chapter in a fight that has moved through both the legislature and the courts. A separate tribal lawsuit against cardrooms, made possible by a 2023 law that granted tribes limited standing to sue, was dismissed last year after a judge concluded it was preempted by federal Indian gaming law.
For now, the injunction keeps cardroom doors open and tables running as usual. We will continue to follow the appeals and the regulatory proceedings, since the eventual outcome could reshape an industry that supports local tax revenue across dozens of California cities.
