Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Senate Finance Committee forwards bill to ban dual‑currency online sweepstakes that function as gambling
Loading...
Summary
The committee advanced SF 44‑74, a bill targeting online sweepstakes casinos that sell 'gold coins' to access play for cash; author and members debated scope and fiscal implications and recommended the bill to pass by voice vote.
Senator Rasmussen presented Senate File 44‑74 to the Finance Committee, framing it as a narrowly tailored ban on online sweepstakes platforms that use a dual‑currency model to enable casino‑style gambling.
The author described the scheme: users can buy 'gold coins' with real money to obtain 'sweeps coins' used to play slots, blackjack and other casino‑style games for cash or other prizes. Rasmussen said the bill requires three elements for a ban to apply: (1) the presence of consideration (a user pays or provides money), (2) a casino‑style game (slot, roulette, blackjack), and (3) an opportunity to win a prize. The bill explicitly preserves free social casino games and traditional promotional sweepstakes (for example, McDonald’s Monopoly), which counsel and the author said reviewed the language and did not raise concerns.
On fiscal matters, Rasmussen noted the attorney general’s fiscal assumptions calculate one contested case per year; her recommendation was that the attorney general absorb any minimal costs. The DPS Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division had not requested additional dollars in the fiscal note. Committee members expressed support for closing the loophole but raised questions about how broadly the definition would reach; Senator Pratt and others asked for clarifying language and said they would continue discussions before floor debate. The committee recommended SF 44‑74 to pass by voice vote.
Why it matters: Lawmakers said the measure responds to what they described as an industry practice that converts promotional sweepstakes laws into de‑facto online gambling. Sponsors and advocacy groups testified in favor; providers targeted by the bill testified in opposition in earlier hearings, according to the author.
What’s next: The bill will advance to the Senate floor as recommended by committee; authors said they would refine language and continue outreach on scope and enforcement.
