Social Casinos Face Regulation in the US

Jump to a Section

1. Controversy
2. Stakeholders
3. Lawsuits
4. Regulation
5. Full Interview

Today we’re talking about something a little spicy and provocative: the current dilemma around online sweepstake casinos in the United States. Now I know I can’t make everybody happy with my analysis and opinions so instead my goal will be to make everyone equally unhappy.

In all seriousness, my words don’t hold much water when it comes to discussing this topic, which is why I sought out the wisdom of more experienced people in the industry. To back up my writing I interviewed two leading voices in the gaming industry, Stephen Crystal and Marc Dunbar who stand on different ends of the sweepstake debate.

Stephen Crystal is the CEO and founder of SCCG management and a global gaming law consultant with over 30 years of experience in the field. He’s neither pro or anti sweepstake, instead he’s committed to “listening to all sides”. Marc Dunbar on the flip side, is a gaming attorney and partner at Jones Walker LLP, known for his opposition to online sweepstakes casinos, which he views as unregulated gambling enterprises. By considering both sides and listening to what each expert had to say I was able to cultivate a 360-degree understanding of the issue. The result—I think—, is an article that comprehensively analyses the sweepstake issue in the U.S and attempts to crack the mystery of where the industry is heading.

But before we can speculate about the future we first have to deal with the past and present. To start, we have to ask ourselves the question: “Why are Sweepstake Casinos Controversial?” Next, we have to examine both sides of the argument and find out what each warring faction is fighting for. And lastly, we have to explore the current challenges facing the sweepstakes industry in 2025 and infer on their ability or inability to halt the growth of the market. Once we do all that we’ll be able to paint a complete picture of the debate and make our final predictions.

Why are Sweepstake Casinos Controversial?

To answer this one, we’re going to have to travel all the way back to the year 2013. A time when the Harlem Shake captivated the world, Breaking Bad’s long awaited finale aired to mass critical appeal and somewhere in a Florida courthouse a judge ruled in favor of banning sweepstake operations in internet cafes.

Internet cafes were a fad in the early 2010s. The idea was to have a place where customers could pay to use a computer and surf the web. While harmless in concept some cafes began charging customers more to participate in sweepstake competitions. In this case, you would log-on to your computer and play casino type games like poker or roulette for the possibility of winning a prize. The 2013 bans were the first warning signs for anyone who dared go against the grain and exploit the legal loopholes of gambling regulation. Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine warned us back then “it’s foolish for anybody to think [sweepstakes] are not going to come back in a different form,” States Scramble to Stop Illegal Gambling at Internet Sweepstakes Cafes. His reasoning: the money.

“There is so much money involved … tremendous amount of money, hundreds of millions of dollars,”

Since then that “hundreds of millions” has ballooned into billions of dollars, with commercial U.S gambling bringing in $66.5 billion in 2023 alone 2023 Commercial Gaming Revenue Reaches $66.5B, Marking Third-Straight Year of Record Revenue. And, for the same reason there will always be new sweepstake casinos trying to get a piece of the pie there will also be those who hate them for it.

Being a lover of all thing’s sports, I will explain the disdain that gambling companies have for sweeps using a sport metaphor. Imagine you were fighting in the UFC but your opponent didn’t have to meet any weight requirements and was allowed to wear padding in the ring. In this case, you’re both playing the same sport but it’s hard to deny that your opponent has an unfair advantage.

This is how traditional gambling operators in the U.S view sweepstake casinos. But, don’t take my word for it, here’s Victor Rocha, founder and editor of Pechanga.net—a leading source for Native American and commercial gaming news in the U.S—sharing his feelings on the booming sweepstake market:

“You see the entire industry is reacting to this, you’re starting to see the outrage […] this is not a dialogue, this is not a discussion—we don’t negotiate with terrorists”

This damming condemnation of sweepstake casinos sheds light on how licensed gambling companies really view their pesky online competitors. In truth, Victor Rocha is far from the only person in gaming to share his distaste for sweeps. Jeremy Sudon, president of the Sports Betting Alliance—a coalition representing leading U.S. sports betting operators, including BetMGM, FanDuel and DraftKings—expressed his concerns in a webcast with Rocha stating:

“They’re going to get up to $4 billion by the end of 2025. That’s a lot of money. That is a ton of money. That’s money that could be going to the states. That’s money that could be going to the tribes. The lost revenue alone, and how important that revenue is […] frustrating and infuriating.”

So, when we ask the question “why are sweepstakes controversial” at least part of it can be explained with a famous ABBA song title, because it really is the ‘Money, Money, Money’. That beautiful green paper. That dough. That cheddar cheese.

In simple terms, some people were used to seeing a certain number of Benjamins come in every month and now because of sweepstakes they’re seeing less. Or, they’re revenue is growing slower, that is to say, they’re making more and more money at a slower rate than usual. This unfriendly competition is one of the main reasons that sweepstake casinos are so hotly debated, but there are others.

On the legal front, sweepstake casinos face heavy criticism as well as a number of civil lawsuits for allegedly being unsafe and dangerous to consumers. Some platforms don’t have the know-your-customer (KYC), anti-money-laundering (AML), and responsible gaming (RG) protections that are legally necessary for licensed gambling platforms making them potentially risky for the user. This is another angle that anti-sweep advocates often use to make their point. The rhetoric rarely strays from the usual beats of emphasizing the need for regulation or outright banning in the sweepstake industry.

The Two Sides

As I mentioned before there are two “teams” and two ways to look at this problem. On one side, you have the anti-sweeps brigade and they’re made up of licensed casino operators, some government officials and disgruntled players. Their mission: stricter regulation for sweepstake casinos, bans or a complete re-categorization of sweeps as full-blown gambling operations.

On the other side of the aisle, you have the pro-sweepers, and they’re comprised largely of—you guessed it—sweepstake casino companies. But in that group, you also have advisory firms and good old fashioned satisfied customers who enjoy playing these casino-like games for free.

Previously, I delved into the anti-sweep mentality and explained where the anger for their online opposition comes from. Now, let’s take that same UFC analogy and use it to explain the pro-sweepstake side. The sweepstake casino argument is that what they’re doing is completely legal and entirely different to gambling. They claim that their digital currency model only facilitates a fun gaming experience and that it’s different enough from direct cash betting to be seen as an entirely new thing.

As it relates to the analogy, they’re basically saying: it doesn’t matter what weight we’re at or that we wear extra padding because we’re not fighting in the ring and we’re not playing the same sport. Ultimately, the goal for those one the sweepstake side is to keep everything the same and make sure nothing changes on the legal front which is easier said than done.

Current Challenges

The sweepstake casino industry is in the midst of one of its most turbulent years in recent history with lawsuits and regulatory crackdowns threatening the emerging market. In this section I’ll explore every challenge that sweepstake casinos are facing in 2025 and speculate on whether the industry will be able to overcome them.

The Legal Battle

Kicking things off are the litany of civil lawsuits being directed at top level sweepstake operators. Companies in the sweepstake casino sector are facing civil lawsuits which threaten to dramatically slow the growth of the industry.

Knapp vs VGW

VGW is at the heart of this legal warfare against sweepstake casinos. The behemoth company behind Chumba Casino and LuckyLand Slots has already fought class action lawsuits in New York and Georgia and now stands accused of violating Florida state gambling laws. The charges brought forward by Knapp—a plaintiff representing disgruntled players—are simple yet potentially groundbreaking.

They allege that VGW were breaking Florida state law whilst operating their sweepstake casinos in the region. Specifically, VGW is accused of violating Section 849.08 of the Florida Statutes which prohibits unlicensed lotteries and Section 849.14 which declares it illegal to engage in any game of chance in which money or something of value is wagered.

Ultimately, the plaintiff argument stands on one central leg: Chumba Casino and Lucky Land Slots are functionally too similar to traditional casinos to not be categorized as gambling operations. If the jury agrees with this idea, then VGW will most likely be found liable by the presiding judge and face serious financial penalty. However, if the jury recognizes sweepstake casinos as being different enough from traditional online casinos, then VGW will prevail in the case.

This sizzling court drama is set to unravel in October of this year with potentially industry-breaking implications. I think it’s fair to suggest that the result of the trial will give us an indication of the public sentiment on the legality of sweepstake casinos in the U.S.

Knapp v. VGW Holdings Limited et al (6:24-cv-00413), Florida Middle District Court

High 5 Games

That said, VGW aren’t the only mega sweepstake company implicated in this legal war. Most recently, High 5 Games, the company behind the massively popular High 5 Casino, lost a class action lawsuit in Washington and was found liable to pay $24.9 million to players. This was after the company was found guilty by a jury of violating Washington gambling laws. The evidence presented during the trial proved that High 5 Games were targeting ‘whale’ players—a title used to describe high-spending users—by offering free promo coins to keep them on the site. While this practice is ethically disputed it’s something that both the biggest online and the biggest brick and mortar casinos do. In that vein, I think it would be unfair to criticize High 5 Games for doing something that is standard in the gaming industry. High 5 Games ordered to pay nearly $25m in social casino class action verdict

Apple and Google

Finally, you have the big tech giants such as Apple and Google who have also been named in lawsuits for allegedly, knowingly, assisting and profiting from illegal gambling by allowing sweepstake casino games on their platforms.

Regulatory Crackdown

On top of the legal burden’s sweepstake casinos are also facing pressures from some of the biggest regulatory boards and gambling trade groups in the nation. One such group, the American Gambling Association (AGA) sent shockwaves through the industry when they released a two-page memo condemning sweepstakes and urging regulators to tighten the screws. In the letter published by Vixio Regulatory Intelligence they warned consumers on the dangers of unregulated sweepstake casinos stating that:

“The lack of regulatory oversight presents many risks for consumers as well as the integrity and economic benefits of the legal gaming market through investment and tax contributions. These sweepstakes-based operators have weak (if any) responsible gaming protocols and few, if any, self-exclusion processes. There is no independent product testing to ensure basic fairness to players, and although many claim players must be 18+, age verification procedures, if they exist, are often questionable.”

They continued by encouraging regulatory agencies to “investigate companies or platforms that offer casino games or a form of sports betting under the ‘sweepstakes’ model to determine whether or not these operators are in compliance with their respective laws and regulations”. To conclude the AGA made a plea to lawmakers and regulators for a review of sweepstake legislation:

“Where state laws and regulations are not clear, legislatures should consider enacting legislation to prevent unlicensed operators from exploiting loopholes in sweepstakes regulations to offer online real money gambling”

So, what should we make of all this? The way I see it, this has gone beyond being just another effort to bring down sweepstake casinos. The AGA have effectively drawn a line in the sand and said ‘are you guys’ going to stand for this?’ And today, as I write this, the answer to this prodding question remains unclear.

Consumer Dangers

Online sweepstakes casinos have exploded in popularity as a legal workaround for players in regions where traditional online gambling is restricted, but their rapid growth has sparked serious concerns about consumer safety and regulatory oversight. These platforms, which operate in a legal gray area by using virtual currencies like "Gold Coins" and "Sweeps Coins," often lack the safeguards required of licensed casinos, leaving players vulnerable to financial risks, data breaches, and predatory practices. For instance, critics argue that the near 1:1 ratio of Sweeps Coins to real dollars spent essentially mimics gambling, creating addiction risks without the protections of regulated platforms—like age verification or self-exclusion tools—leaving younger players (many sites allow 18+ participation) exposed to potential harm Sweepstakes Casinos Face Long Legal Odds To Survive ‘Substance-Over-Form’ Court Scrutiny, The Hidden Dangers of Sweepstakes Casinos: Legal Risks.

Data protection is another glaring issue: while major breaches like the 2023 Caesars Entertainment hack (which exposed driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers) targeted traditional casinos Massive MGM and Caesars Hacks Epitomize a Vicious Ransomware Cycle | WIRED, sweepstakes platforms face similar vulnerabilities due to lax security practices. For example, users of platforms like McLuck and Hello Millions have reported abrupt shutdowns and account freezes, raising questions about how securely their personal and financial data is handled during these transitions Casino Data Breaches: Timeline Up To Jan. 2025 - Cybersecurity For Me.

Regulators are also alarmed by poor KYC (Know Your Customer) protocols, which are critical for preventing fraud and underage gambling. Many sweepstake casinos skip rigorous identity checks, relying instead on minimal verification—like email sign-ups—to onboard users quickly. This loophole was highlighted in a 2024 class action lawsuit against Chumba Casino and LuckyLand Slots, where plaintiffs accused the platforms of enabling underage gambling and failing to verify user identities adequately, effectively turning a blind eye to potential money laundering or minors accessing games Lawsuit Targets Major Sweepstakes Casino Operators. Lawmakers, including the American Gaming Association, have called for stricter oversight, noting that the lack of mandatory KYC and anti-money laundering measures in sweepstakes models creates a playground for bad actors while depriving states of tax revenue AGA’s Sweepstakes Memo Concern: Promoting Player Protection - SCCG Management.

The stakes are high: with the industry projected to hit $11 billion by 2025, the combination of weak security, sketchy compliance, and aggressive marketing (like spammy pop-ups and "free coin" traps) paints a worrying picture for consumers—one where the ecstasy of a potential win hides a minefield of dangers.

Exclusive Interviews w/ Stephen Crystal and Marc Dunbar

As I mentioned before this article is also in part an interview with two leading voices in the gaming industry. These two men are both experts in the field with different views on the sweepstakes dilemma. I asked each a series of relevant questions and now I’ll analyze their answers. Before I can do that though let me briefly introduce both experts, explaining their background and credentials.

Stephen Crystal

With three decades of grit and innovation under his belt, Stephen Crystal is a cornerstone of the modern gaming industry. Starting his career in the 1990s, he cut his teeth by transforming tribal and riverboat gaming operations before diving into Las Vegas’s glittering casino scene, where he owned iconic properties like the Plaza and Gold Spike Stephen A. Crystal - SCCG Management. Though his formal education isn’t widely publicized, Crystal credits his early success to a mentor who taught him to “never [be] too busy to take a phone call [or] listen to an idea”—a philosophy that shaped his open-door approach to innovation Stephen Crystal (SCCG Management). About learning, teaching, and the value of experience - Gaming And Media. This is something I can certainly vouch for considering the fact he gave me a chance to interview him directly even though I was coming from a smaller news-site. Today, as founder of SCCG Management, Stephen’s a global gaming advisor, steering $3 billion in deals and championing emerging markets like Brazil’s booming sports betting scene Stephen A. Crystal - SCCG Management. On sweepstakes casinos, Crystal sees them as a clever workaround in restrictive U.S. states, praising their role as a testing ground for new tech and a bridge to regulated markets, though he stresses the need for compliance and responsible gaming safeguards The Legal Framework of Sweepstakes Casinos: How They Operate - SCCG Management. 

Marc Dunbar

Marc Dunbar, a sharp-witted attorney with a knack for untangling legal knots, carved his niche in gaming law after a stint in Florida’s public sector. A Florida State University Law alum, he initially tackled utilities and healthcare regulation before pivoting to gaming, drawn by its blend of policy and high-stakes lobbying Marc Dunbar | IAGR – International Association of Gaming Regulators. Now a partner at Jones Walker LLP and an FSU Law professor, he’s become a go-to voice on contentious issues like Florida’s gambling laws and the ethics of sweepstakes casinos. While he acknowledges their popularity in 48 states, Dunbar sounds the alarm on lax KYC practices and underage access risks, pointing to lawsuits like the 2024 Chumba Casino case as proof of systemic flaws. His stance? Sweepstakes platforms need tighter oversight to prevent exploitation—a view that’s made him a frequent critic in legislative debates.

How do you view sweepstake casinos in the current gaming landscape?

Stephen’s Crystal:

“The truth of the matter is: sweepstakes is not new, it goes back decades and decades. There used to be a very popular sweepstakes offering called ‘Publishers Clearing House’, there was a frontman Ed Mcman—Johnny Carson’s sidekick at the time. The business model was to sell subscriptions to magazines which would entitle you to be entered into a sweepstakes drawing […] result[ing] in the winner being awarded a certain amount of money—[i.e.] 200,000 dollars a year for the rest of your life. And now we have the evolution to online.

The main reason it’s picked up momentum in the U.S, is because it was originally thought that iGaming jurisdictions would come online one by one by one. In the end, after 5,6 years of legalized online gambling in the U.S we only have six markets that have some form of online gaming. There’s quite a few [states] that have online sports, but only a few that have online casino. So, the vacuum has been by sweepstakes.

Right now, the estimated GGR—Gross Gaming Revenue—for sweepstakes gaming online exceed the GGR for legalized online casino in the U.S, which is a really interesting development.”

Marc Dunbar:

“The current operational model of many digital casinos represents a high-risk legal strategy, leveraging regulatory ambiguity and jurisdictional complexity to maintain ostensible legality. However, this approach increasingly faces judicial scrutiny, as evidenced by emerging class action litigation challenging these business models.

For gaming enterprises seeking sustainable market engagement, a proactive compliance strategy—meticulously aligning operational frameworks with specific jurisdictional requirements—represents the most prudent path forward.”

How do you see sweepstake casinos navigating the growing regulatory challenges in the U.S., and what changes to the legal framework do you expect we’ll see in the coming years?

Stephen Crystal:

“We can look at Fantasy Sports as a good analogy, when fanatsy sports started 15, 20 years ago—this is what gave birth to DraftKings and FanDuel, two of the leaders in the U.S market. It was basically legal opinions being written by lawyers and payment processors signing on board based on the legal opinion that fantasy sports was a skill-based contest, which was legal in most states in America. Over time, some states put a stake in the ground and said “we will not allow fantasy sports”, some states said “we will allow it with this regulation”, and some didn’t regulate and left it in the gray. I think the same thing is happening now with sweepstakes:

You have some states like Michigan who have come out and said ‘not only is it illegal, but if you do it, we’re not going to allow you to participate in legalized iGaming’. Then you have lots of states that have no opinion and so therefore most of the market remains grey. I think over time more and more markets will speak out against sweepstakes, there may [even] be federal efforts to regulate sweepstakes.

We have a class action/RICO lawsuit against the app stores, which is really putting pressure there. Now, most sweepstake sites are accessed through webapps and not through apps that are in the different stores.

So, I do think it’s under pressure. But, by the same token, as someone who receives a lot of inbound interest through our advisory side of the business. I would say it has not slowed down; we’re getting dozens and dozens of inquiries a month. That tells me the market is still very strong here.”

We know that a few states have already taken the initiative to regulate sweepstake casinos, which ones do you think we’ll see take that step next?

Stephen Crystal:

“I don’t spend a lot of time reading the tea leaves, I focus on what the landscape is at any given time. As you know, the platforms that offer sweepstakes are fairly sophisticated, they have the ability to turn on and turn off geo-fencing on a moments notice. The operatives can be fairly nimble navigating what is and is not allowed.

Obviously estimated at 8-10 billion GGR a year, the market is sufficiently large by any estimate. Even as markets declare, there’s still lots of market opportunity.

I would say the bigger issue, is the same issue we had as fantasy sports developed, as online gaming or sports betting developed. We had 150 brands that started with sports betting and we’re now down to less than 20. The reason for this is that the cost of acquisition goes up and up and up over time not down.

So, now as the market matures in sweeps, it becomes more cost intensive to get your share of the market. We started with Chumba [Casino] controlling over 60-65% of the market. It still has market dominance and, yes there are hundreds and hundreds of more players who are getting smaller and smaller shares of the market. But, when the cost of acquisition and retention go up, it’s going to make the economics harder, so there will be fallout even amongst the groups that are getting into it now.”

Marc Dunbar:

“Sophisticated gaming regulatory bodies are poised to escalate enforcement actions against sweepstakes casinos and illicit internet-based gambling platforms. Jurisdictions with established iGaming frameworks will likely intensify efforts to compel illegal operators into regulatory compliance.

Proposed legislation seeking to legitimize sweepstakes casinos will likely falter, reflecting the inherent legal deficiencies of current operational models. The emergence of such legislative proposals underscores the fundamental illegality of these platforms under existing state statutory frameworks.

The regulatory trajectory suggests a progressive tightening of legal scrutiny, with regulatory bodies increasingly prioritizing comprehensive market oversight and enforcement against non-compliant digital gaming entities.”

What role do you think traditional, licensed gambling companies play in the push for or against stricter regulation of sweepstake casinos?

Stephen Crystal:

“The largest brands: CeasersMGM, DraftKings, FanDuel, ESPNBET, PenGaming are committed to an opposition strategy. But if you look at DraftKings, they were opposing some of the Fantasy [sports] sites that were doing ‘pick em’ style [games], they thought they were violating the rules of fantasy, and then when they couldn’t stop them, they just acquired them or replicated what they were doing.

So, I guess what I’m saying is: if we look at Michigan as an example where they’ve outlawed sweeps, we know for a fact that when sweeps was going strong in Michigan it was not cannibalizing online gaming. There’s a different customer appetite; it’s a different type of content. So, what I would say is that they will oppose strong and if they can’t defeat it, then they’ll join it. This is the history in America.”

Marc Dunbar:

“The gaming industry and regulatory ecosystem exhibit a fundamental dichotomy between compliant operators and those seeking regulatory circumvention. Legitimate industry participants and regulators advocate for transparent, well-defined statutory frameworks and robust enforcement mechanisms targeting black-market gambling operations.

Conversely, operators in legally ambiguous spaces consistently leverage purported regulatory grey areas, advocating for continued market access through strategic regulatory exploitation or enforcement inaction. This approach represents a calculated risk management strategy predicated on regulatory uncertainty and jurisdictional complexity.

The inherent tension reflects broader challenges in adapting regulatory structures to rapidly evolving digital gaming technologies and business models.”

Does the growth of sweepstake casinos threaten or complement the broader gaming industry?

Stephen Crystal:

“I think it depends who you talk to obviously. My job as a connector and a subject matter expert, is to listen to all sides. My job is not to pick and choose. Obviously, as a lawyer, trained in gambling law for over 35 years I’m very keen to do things that are legal. But I would say it depends on your perspective. If you’re anti-sweeps you’re going to point to studies and statistics that suggest cannibalization and suggest that customers are getting harmed.

If you’re looking at the U.S, it’s fairly routine that we have billion-dollar jackpots for our lottery. The most regressive form of gambling in the U.S is the lottery. The people least able to spend the money are the people buying lottery tickets and the chance of winning is so so bad.

My view after 35 years is: in the U.S we’re not like Europe; we don’t over-regulate people. We give people the opportunity to partake in things [that] may not be great for them but we encourage them and the companies that offer it to be responsible. We have a lot of self-regulation that is effective and I don’t see that changing. If anything, I see the U.S becoming more and more free and I see Europe and the rest of the world becoming more and more restrictive. I kind of feel like people will partake in things that they enjoy.

Recently we had an acquisition [from] DraftKings of one of the lottery [ticket] reseller companies. When they started, they were in the grey reselling lottery tickets in the U.S, now it’s mainstream. So, I will say, there is going to be pressure, not everyone who’s in it will survive—because of the economics. And, in the end, the best of sweeps will get incorporated into legalized iGaming in the U.S. That, I think, is the long term picture.”

Marc Dunbar:

“Black-market gambling represents a systemic threat to legitimate industry participants, taxpayers, and players. Beyond revenue loss, these unregulated platforms fundamentally compromise essential player protections and market integrity.

By operating outside established regulatory frameworks, black-market gambling entities undermine consumer safeguards, tax compliance, and the operational sustainability of lawful gaming enterprises. These platforms do not enhance industry capabilities but instead create significant economic and consumer risks.

The proliferation of such unregulated gambling operations represents a critical challenge for gaming regulators and responsible industry stakeholders, necessitating comprehensive enforcement and strategic intervention.”

How do you see the sweepstake casino industry in the U.S changing in the next 3 years? 

Stephen Crystal:

“Nobody knows. It’s just a guess. A lot of people if you asked them at one time, they would’ve said 3 to 5 years. Depending upon the day, somebody might say 1 year.

What I hear from people is; if you look at the investment to get into sweeps, most people feel you can make a return on your investment within 6 months. So, as long as the horizon is viewed as longer than that—[6 months]—you’re going to see people coming in.”

Marc Dunbar:

“Absent substantial legislative or constitutional modifications, sweepstakes gambling operations will persist in legal limbo across most U.S. jurisdictions. These platforms will continue to generate critical discourse regarding the systemic risks associated with unregulated, offshore wagering activities.

The ongoing legal ambiguity underscores broader challenges in adapting regulatory frameworks to evolving digital gaming technologies and business models.”

As founder of SCCG is there anything you can share about your presence in the sweepstakes world, potential new plans or exciting partnerships on the horizon?

Stephen Crystal:

“As experts in the industry and as a global company we have to be receptive to our partners. We have many partners that touch sweeps. We have more partners that touch things like sportsbook, class II mobile on-premise gaming—a tribal gaming initiative. So, I would say the preponderance—[majority]—of our advisory and manage-service business is non-sweeps, but I’ve never viewed my role as being a gatekeeper to say ‘yay or nay’. I go by the law; I go by what I know about regulation and I believe in the free economy.

I also believe in being responsive to customers. Obviously, I want them to gamble in a responsible way and products to be offered responsibly. But I’m not here to be the government and I’m not here to be the moral police as to what people should and shouldn’t do. This is not what I view my role as. My role is to support the best technology, the most responsible technology, the best content, the most responsible content, and to do it in such a way that it’s professional, legal and, without conflict. That’s how we approach sweeps and a lot of other sectors within the gambling industry.”

The Takeaway

I think both Mr. Crystal and Mr. Dunbar bring up good points with the latter offering a more radical perspective on the matter, one that condemns the very existence of sweeps. But if I go off of my gut, I believe Stephen’s analysis to be more honest, both in the things that he does know about the industry but mostly in the areas of uncertainty. He’s very forthcoming about the fact that nobody truly knows the future of the sweepstake industry in the U.S. No one has a crystal ball. We’re all just shooting in the dark, making our best guess about what’s to come. Will it be the industry civil war spectacle that some are predicting or will sweeps simply be absorbed and integrated into other platforms. I’m not sure. I leave that up to you, the reader. Look at both interviews closely, examine all the facts that I laid out in this article and come up with your own conclusion.

In the end, there’s no doubt that sweepstake casinos are in an uncharted legal landscape. The innovative dual currency system that first allowed them to duck regulations could become the very thing that leads to their demise. The ball is now firmly in the courts of the lawmakers and regulating agencies. What will they choose to do? Put down the emerging industry like a sick dog through bans and restrictions, or, let new platforms soar and provide different and unique gaming experiences for users.