The ongoing drama between tribal casinos and local California cardrooms took another turn as the cardrooms found themselves under further legal scrutiny. This time, the cardrooms are being accused of mishandling surveillance footage. These issues stem from the original lawsuit against them where local tribes have accused the cardrooms of violating the law by offering certain ‘banked’ card games.
According to local law and the state compacts that are in place with local tribes, cardrooms aren’t allowed to offer these games. This is because they fall under the exclusive domain of the tribes and their exclusive rights to offer certain types of casino gaming in the state. These two have been at loggerheads before and both now seek to lobby as many lawmakers as they can to ensure future regulations favor their side only.
Of course, for players in the state, this is all something of a hindrance to the freedom they crave to play their favorite casino games where and how they want to. For example, despite California being the technology hub of the nation, the state still does not offer legal iGaming to locals. However, many Californian gamers have been turning to platforms like Golden Panda to access such services.
Sites like it are licensed internationally but can still be accessed and played by local players. As they operate in a gray legal area, they have become the only lifeline for Californian players—many of whom feel the time is now ripe for the state to begin legalizing iGaming so players have local options.
While all this goes on, the local cardroom industry has been fighting for years to be granted a larger piece of the pie. Given the exclusivity of the tribal compacts, they argue that their operations are unduly limited and insufficient to cater to demand. Recently, a lawsuit filed against them by the tribes alleges that the cardrooms have been overstepping in their services by offering banked games that they legally aren’t allowed to.
Now, following up on that matter, several of the cardrooms have been accused of mishandling surveillance footage. Under California’s Proposition 1A, only tribes can operate house-banked card games where players compete against the casino. Card rooms argue their games, which use third-party providers of proposition player services (TPPPS) as financial banks, are legal since TPPPS are independent entities.
Tribes, opposed to TPPPS since their 2007 introduction, gained the ability to sue with the signing of SB 549 in September. Card rooms have been against the system for years and now warn closures could harm small communities reliant on their revenue and have spent millions opposing lawmakers who supported SB 549.
Surveillance systems are essential in card rooms for security and fraud prevention. However, in this case, overhead surveillance systems could become key in proving whether or not cardrooms were indeed offering players the chance to play against the house—services that are reserved for tribal casinos in the state only.
Time will tell how this all turns out. For now, the tribes are arguing that the footage in question has not been forthcoming or has been mishandled deliberately. The matter could alter the state of casino gaming in the state for a long time. However, neither side has so far been willing to back down on the issue.
