Share 
State of Play’s TL;DR
- California tribes are preparing to appeal after a district court dismissed their case against cardrooms last October.
- It comes on the heels of a district court ruling allowing cardrooms to remain operating as they have in the past.
California’s dispute over cardrooms and tribal gaming exclusivity is moving into another important phase.
While tribes plan an appeal of their case against cardrooms that was dismissed in October, Attorney General Rob Bonta’s next moves are uncertain after a court rebutted his office’s attempt to enact restrictive rules on blackjack and third-party entities that would have undoubtingly shuttered most cardrooms in the state.
That combination keeps two tracks in play at once: a court battle over whether tribes can use state law to challenge cardrooms, and a regulatory effort that already appears aimed at narrowing some cardroom practices.
A tale of two cases
California Indian Country has long argued that cardrooms violate tribes’ exclusivity to offer house-banked card games. In late 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 549, giving tribes one opportunity to sue cardrooms and try to settle that issue.
But the case did not get far. A district court judge dismissed it last October, finding that federal law pre-empts the new state law. Tribes now plan to appeal that decision to the Third District Court of Appeal.
Meanwhile, Bonta, through the Bureau of Gambling Control, released new cardroom regulations in February. While they limited the type of blackjack-style and other card games cardrooms may offer, they also changed how third-party proposition players can operate. Those businesses have been a major part of the long-running debate over whether cardrooms are offering games too close to the house-banked play that tribes say is reserved to them.
The cardrooms sued, seeking an injunction halting the new rules from going into effect, which was granted. Then, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Darwin ruled that the Bureau of Gambling Control went too far when it issued the new restrictions.
Taken together, the appeal and the regulations suggest California is still actively testing where the boundaries are for cardroom gaming.
What it means for players
Players remain somewhere in the middle. They should understand that the state is still sorting out the line between tribal exclusivity and cardroom offerings.
If the appeal moves forward or if regulators continue refining the rules, the games available in cardrooms – and the way those games are structured – could remain under close scrutiny.
That leaves California with a basic unresolved question: whether the dispute between tribes and cardrooms will be settled through the courts, through regulation, or through some combination of both.
Based on reporting by Jill R. Dorson for Casino Reports.
