The states to avoid for sweepstakes operators in 2026 are California, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Montana, New Jersey, New York, and Washington. Lines.com and Sweepsy provide matching support for the legal authority and effective-date status used for each state.
Other states may also restrict sweepstakes casino activity, but they are not included when the two sources differ on the law, date, or current classification. Operators should use this as a conservative compliance checklist rather than a substitute for qualified legal advice.
Quick Answer: States Operators Should Avoid
| State | Law or bill | Effective date |
|---|---|---|
| California | AB 831 | January 1, 2026 |
| Connecticut | SB 1235 / Public Act 25-112 | October 1, 2025 |
| Idaho | Article III, Section 20 of the Idaho Constitution | Pre-existing law |
| Indiana | HB 1052 | July 1, 2026 |
| Montana | SB 555 | October 1, 2025 |
| New Jersey | A 5447 | August 15, 2025 |
| New York | S 5935A / A 6745 | December 5, 2025 |
| Washington | RCW 9.46.240 | Pre-existing law |
This table is based on overlapping information in the Lines.com state guide and the Sweepsy bills-and-bans tracker. Both sources identify these eight states as restricted and provide matching legal authority or effective-date information.
Why Operators Should Avoid These States
California — AB 831
California’s AB 831 took effect on January 1, 2026. Both sources describe the measure as prohibiting sweepstakes casino operations using the dual-currency model.
Operators should block California residents and users physically located in the state from covered registration, gameplay, purchases, promotional participation, and redemptions. Existing accounts should also be reviewed rather than leaving access open simply because registration occurred before the effective date.
Connecticut — SB 1235
Connecticut’s SB 1235, enacted as Public Act 25-112, took effect on October 1, 2025. The restriction covers real or simulated casino gaming offered by sweepstakes operators.
Connecticut should be included in geo-fencing, identity screening, payment controls, advertising exclusions, and customer-support procedures. Written terms should match the restrictions used by the platform’s technical systems.
Idaho — Article III, Section 20
Idaho’s restriction is based on pre-existing law rather than a new 2025 or 2026 bill. Both sources point to Article III, Section 20 of the Idaho Constitution and classify sweepstakes casino redemptions as prohibited under restrictions involving casino-gambling simulations.
Operators should not interpret the absence of a recent bill as permission to operate. Idaho addresses, identification records, payment details, and device locations should trigger the same exclusion process used for states with newly enacted bans.
Indiana — HB 1052
Indiana’s HB 1052 took effect on July 1, 2026. Both sources identify the law as prohibiting covered sweepstakes casino models, including multi-currency structures.
Operators should apply the restriction across the full account lifecycle. Blocking only new sign-ups may leave existing Indiana users able to log in, play, purchase promotional packages, or request redemptions.
Montana — SB 555
Montana’s SB 555 took effect on October 1, 2025. The measure revised the state’s gambling laws and expanded the framework used against covered online sweepstakes casino activity.
Montana should appear consistently in restricted-state terms, geo-fencing settings, affiliate instructions, marketing suppression lists, and internal compliance records.
New Jersey — A 5447
New Jersey’s A 5447 became effective on August 15, 2025. Both sources identify the measure as banning sweepstakes gaming that uses a dual-currency structure.
Operators should not assume that New Jersey’s regulated casino market makes unlicensed sweepstakes casino activity acceptable. The state should be blocked at registration, login, gameplay, payment, and redemption stages.
New York — S 5935A / A 6745
New York’s S 5935A and companion A 6745 took effect on December 5, 2025. The restriction covers online sweepstakes gaming and reaches operators as well as specified supporting businesses.
Operators should review not only direct player access but also payment, affiliate, advertising, platform, and content relationships connected to New York.
Washington — RCW 9.46.240
Washington’s restriction is based on pre-existing law, including RCW 9.46.240. Both sources classify covered sweepstakes casino activity as prohibited under the state’s existing gambling framework.
Washington should be excluded from gameplay and redemptions, including participation through a free Alternative Method of Entry. No purchase necessary does not mean participation is permitted in a prohibited jurisdiction.
How Operators Should Enforce State Exclusions
Publishing a restricted-state list is not enough. Operators need controls that apply across registration, account access, gameplay, payments, and redemptions.
Use Layered Location Controls
Geo-fencing should check a user’s physical location at more than one stage. Operators should compare device location with the registered address, identity documents, payment information, and unusual login activity.
Potential location masking, repeated state changes, or conflicting account data should trigger manual review.
Connect KYC, Payments, and Redemptions
Know Your Customer procedures should verify age, identity, and address. Payment and redemption systems should use the same state-exclusion rules so a user blocked from gameplay cannot complete another restricted transaction.
Operators working with several systems should review how they are managing credits across platforms. One backend should not continue serving a restricted state after another has blocked it.
Update Marketing and Partner Instructions
State exclusions should extend to:
- Email campaigns
- Paid advertising
- Affiliate pages
- Social-media targeting
- Promotional landing pages
- Customer-support scripts
A trusted sweepstakes credit provider may support platform operations, but the operator remains responsible for market-access decisions.
Restrictions should also be considered when evaluating bulk game credits pricing so credits are not allocated to jurisdictions that cannot be served.
Review the List Regularly
Lines.com and Sweepsy do not align on every state or every 2026 legal development. That is why this article includes only the eight entries for which the supplied facts provide matching law and date support.
Operators should record:
- The review date
- Sources checked
- Bill or legal authority
- Effective date
- Operational action taken
- Person approving the update
- Date of the next review
When the sources do not match, operators should pause expansion and obtain advice from qualified legal counsel rather than selecting the more favorable interpretation.
Build Compliance Into Daily Operations
California, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Montana, New Jersey, New York, and Washington are the states operators should avoid under the strict two-source standard used for this article.
Each exclusion should be reflected in technology, payments, marketing, customer support, affiliate instructions, and written rules.
For credits, coins, software, and operational support, visit Elite Entertainment. Elite Entertainment is a trusted provider of credits, coins, and software for sweepstakes gaming operators.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Operators must confirm current legal, age, location, licensing, and compliance requirements. No purchase necessary where an AMOE applies. Void where prohibited.