Non-tribal gaming rooms in California, known as cardrooms, are facing the most profound regulatory change in their recent history. The new rules, approved on February 6, 2026, came into force on April 1, with a deadline of May 31 for establishments to submit their blackjack compliance plans. The industry’s reaction was immediate: lawsuits, protests, and warnings about a possible economic collapse that would impact both operators and municipalities that depend on this revenue.
Read more Colombia launches regulated Keno and projects new revenue for healthcare
What changes in the blackjack rules
The new regulations radically transform the mechanics of blackjack in cardrooms. The modifications alter the traditional logic of the game, eliminating key dynamics such as the classic 21-point limit and automatic victory with certain combinations. The result is now defined by comparing scores between the player and the bank, which completely redefines the experience. Additionally, no game may use the words “21” or “blackjack” in its name.
Rules are also changing for Third Party Proposition Players (TPPPS), a key part of the business model. The player-dealer must rotate every 40 minutes among at least two other players or the game must end. Each table must inform that any player can take on that role. Only one TPPPS is allowed per table, and they may only operate when they are effectively acting as the player-dealer.
The lawsuits: the industry responds
The California Gaming Association (CGA), along with cardrooms and TPPPS operators, filed two lawsuits to block the regulations and requested preliminary injunctions to halt their application. The legal action is directed against Attorney General Rob Bonta, the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Gambling Control, and its director.
The plaintiffs maintain that the authorities lack the power to impose these changes, that the rules contradict current legislation, and that they violate procedural guarantees. The industry also questions the lack of legal justification and evidence of risks in games that have operated for decades.
Economic impact: cities on alert
The financial impact is already causing concern. It is estimated that cardrooms could lose hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, while tribal casinos would capture a significant portion of that flow. A slowdown in job creation in the sector is also projected.
For cities like Commerce and Bell Gardens, where gaming revenue represents more than 40% of the budget, the scenario is critical. Both have already declared a fiscal emergency and are evaluating measures to compensate for the drop in revenue, including tax increases.
A long-standing conflict
The dispute between tribes and cardrooms dates back more than two decades. In 2000, Proposition 1A granted tribes exclusivity over banked games like blackjack. However, cardrooms found mechanisms to offer variants of these games since 2007, which has generated constant tension.
Read more Mendoza evaluates banning child support debtors from casinos, events, and online games
In 2024, a new law allowed tribes to sue cardrooms, but the case was dismissed in the first instance. The appeal is still ongoing, keeping the legal conflict open.
The tribes celebrate, with nuances
The tribes have received the changes as a victory after years of claims, considering that the games offered by the cardrooms violated their exclusivity. However, they recognize that the measures could have been even stricter. They have also stated that their goal is not to harm communities, but to enforce the law.
Bonta under pressure
Attorney General Rob Bonta is at the center of the controversy, in a context marked by his reelection campaign. The industry questions possible political motivations behind the regulations, while records show contributions from both tribes and cardrooms over the years.
His recent actions in the gaming sector reinforce his regulatory profile, including measures against other forms of gambling in the state.
An uncertain future
The outcome will depend on what the courts determine in the coming weeks. The lawsuits seek to halt the application of the rules while the litigation proceeds, and their resolution could redefine the sector in key regions such as Los Angeles, the Bay Area, and San Jose.
Meanwhile, for the cardroom industry and the communities that depend on it, what is at stake is much more than a regulation: it is their very viability.
Read more Brazil studies restricting online betting to access debt renegotiation
