California Cardrooms Sue Attorney General Over Harmful New Gaming Regulations.
California’s thriving cardroom industry is in the midst of a legal battle with the state’s Attorney General, after the recent adoption of new gaming regulations that reverse decades of game approvals by the Attorney General and which will harm cardrooms, their employees and local communities.
The cardroom lawsuits challenge the Attorney General’s sweeping changes to player-dealer games like Pai Gow Poker, Three Card Poker and Blackjack-style games. In these cardroom games, instead of the players wagering against the house or casino, the opportunity to wager on the dealer hand and against all the other players rotates among the players. The regulations would restrict these games and eliminate Blackjack-style games altogether.
California’s cardrooms date to the Gold Rush. They have been a fixture of the state’s history, offering poker – and in the last four decades – player-dealer card games to millions of residents and tourists alike. The cardrooms provide jobs for tens of thousands of Californians and contribute significantly to local economies, particularly in cities like Los Angeles, San Jose, and Commerce.
In 2001, California tribal casinos acquired the ability to offer house banked card games. Some of the state’s powerful tribal casinos – who until 2001 offered the same player-dealer games as the cardrooms – have been lobbying for the Attorney General to find the player-dealer games illegal: a complete about-face for both the tribal casinos and the Attorney General’s office.
The recent regulations introduced by the Attorney General’s office at the behest of these tribes have resulted in two lawsuits against the Attorney General arguing that the Attorney General lacks the authority to withdraw cardroom game approvals and alleging that the Attorney General’s newfound legal positions contradict established case law and previously published Attorney General opinions and game approvals.
The stakes are high not only for the cardroom industry but for the future of gaming in California. The outcome will have lasting implications for California’s gaming industry and the political climate for future gambling legislation and initiatives.
CALIFORNIA GAMING ASSOCIATION ET AL VS. ROB BONTA ET AL, San Francisco Superior Court Case Numbers: (Player-Dealer Regulation) CPF26519606; and (Blackjack Regulation) CPF26519609.
Update: On June 30, 2026, the Superior Court ruled that the Attorney General lacked the legal authority to adopt the regulations. After the court enters a writ, the Attorney General may appeal the decision.
