Players at online sweepstakes casinos in Florida and New York face a unique limitation when it comes to their winnings.

And it’s something those players should be aware of before playing any games with Sweeps Coins to avoid a situation that could range from mildly annoying to yank-my-hair-out frustrating. 

The maximum sweepstakes prize redemption is $5,000 in Florida and New York.

As most sweeps operators redeem Sweeps Coins at a 1 SC to $1 ratio, that’s 5,000 SC (or whatever the operator calls its redeemable currency).

Reason No. 23,987 to read the terms and conditions

Not all players know this information, however.

Take this Reddit user, for example, who recently posted a screenshot of an email with a WOW Vegas customer service representative. The email is explaining why only a portion of the user’s spin prize on the slot Crash Live from Feb. 17 could be redeemed.

“I am writing you today as we had to place some limitations on your winnings,” the representative wrote. “ … Please note that this is not a business decision and we are just respecting the conditions imposed for your state.”

The user’s prize from the spin: 15,470 SC.

The amount the user cannot redeem: 10,470 SC.

Origins of $5,000 prize limit in NY and FL

Florida’s $5,000 prize redemption limitation stems from Section 849.094 of the Florida Statutes.

That law doesn’t explicitly state Florida residents can’t redeem sweepstakes prizes of more than $5,000.

What it states is that companies offering a sweepstakes prize of greater than $5,000 in Florida must register with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and file a surety bond equal to the prize value “unless they have conducted game promotions in Florida for at least five consecutive years and they have had no civil, criminal or administrative actions instituted against them for a violation of” the statute.

“This process can be both time-consuming and costly, leading many companies to exclude Florida to avoid the extra burden,” reads a portion of a page of the Social Media Law Firm’s website dedicated to sweepstakes contests in Florida.

The same type of rule is in place in New York — sweepstakes operators must register and bond the contest with the New York Department of State if the prize totals more than $5,000 — but the state isn’t seen to be as stringent as Florida.

At least according to the Kilpatrick Townsend law firm.

“Enforcement in New York is much less of a factor,” the firm wrote in a law guide focused on sweepstakes and skill contests.

There is also a sweepstakes redemption limit of $500 in Rhode Island, but that is only for retail contests.

The Reddit user did not share which state they live in.

Examples of how sites address the prize limit

Most sweeps sites explain the prize redemption situation in New York and Florida within their terms and conditions or sweeps rules.

Here it is in the WOW Vegas terms:

“For eligible participants who are resident in New York or Florida, the highest single prize amount that can be redeemed is capped at USD$5,000 per spin or play round. Redemption amounts exceeding USD$5,000 will not be awarded to residents of these states.”

Here’s what the terms and conditions say for sweepstakes behemoth VGW, which owns Chumba Casino, LuckyLand Slots, and Global Poker:

“In New York and Florida, the maximum redemption value for a Prize won on any one spin or play is USD $5,000 and any Prize with a value in excess of USD $5,000 will be reduced to a maximum value of USD $5,000.”

Real Prize even caps the redemptions at $4,999.99 in its terms and conditions:

“Any potential prizes (in Florida and New York) in excess of that ($5,000) will automatically be reduced to US$4,999.99.”

These sites allow players to carry leftover funds to next redemption period

Clubs Casino adds an important distinction in its sweepstakes rules. It, too, states that any prize above $5,000 cannot be redeemed in New York in Florida. But it also specifies that “any requested redemption in excess of ($5,000) will not be paid to the participant during the period, but must be deferred until the next Sweepstakes Entry Period.”

In other words: You can’t redeem a prize of 7,500 SC for $7,500 at once, but you can split it into $5,000 and $2,500 across two redemption periods.

Fliff, meanwhile, applies the $5,000 prize limit to all users and directly states in its rules that a player can carry over any excess greater than $5,000 to the next sweepstakes period.

It is not always clear from sites’ terms and conditions if they will honor the same carry-over policy that Clubs Casino and Fliff stipulate in their rules. In comments following their Reddit post about the WOW Vegas email, the Reddit user said they were not able to redeem the excess SC beyond 5,000 from their spin.

Sweepsy asked WOW Vegas customer service if players can carry over prize amounts greater than $5,000 to the next redemption period. The response reviewed the different steps and payment options for redemptions but didn’t address our specific question.

We asked the same question to a variety of other sweeps operators’ customer support teams. Of the operators that responded, four said yes, a player can carry over amounts greater than $5,000 to the next redemption period. Those operators are:

• Chanced
• Stake.us
• Legendz
• High 5 Casino

The status of sweeps casinos in both states

Earlier this week, Sen. Joseph Addabbo introduced a bill in New York that would ban sweepstakes gaming sites.

Specifically, the bill outlaws “operating, conducting, or promoting certain online sweepstakes games or supporting the operation, conduct, or promotion of such games.” It was filed March 4 and sits in Addabbo’s committee, the Senate Racing, Gaming, and Wagering Committee.

The Social and Promotional Games Association called the bill “deeply flawed” and “a colossal waste of government resources.”

“The correct approach to support innovation, consumer choice, and the economy of New York is sensible regulation and taxation of social sweepstakes games that millions of adults enjoy responsibly and safely,” the SPGA said in a statement.

Some sweepstakes sites currently do not operate in New York. Stake.us, for instance, has New York listed on its list of restricted states. However, most notable sweeps sites are live in New York.

Meanwhile, in Florida, two lawmakers have filed bills that would effectively outlaw sweepstakes casinos, first reported by US gambling attorney Daniel Wallach on LinkedIn.

The bills expand Florida’s gambling ban to include “Internet gambling” and “Internet sports wagering” and both those categories are specified to include people betting with money or any “other thing of value” online.

For sweeps sites, the problem is that Sweeps Coins could be classified in the “other thing of value” category.

The House version of the bill had its first reading on Tuesday, but no updates since then. The Senate bill has only been filed so far.

The SPGA said these bills “inaccurately conflate safe and legal social sweepstakes games” with online gambling.

“(We urge) Florida lawmakers to engage with industry representatives to better understand the legal and operational differences between sweepstakes gaming and gambling,” the SPGA said in a statement, “before advancing legislation that would harm businesses operating legitimately under longstanding promotional sweepstakes laws.”

In a statement released to Sweepsy, VGW — the sweepstakes gaming operator behind industry-leading brands Chumba Casino, LuckyLand Slots, and Global Poker — explained its motivations for increasing its minimum age limit from 18 to 21.

A VGW spokesperson said the decision came “as part of our commitment to best-in-class responsible social gameplay.”

“We view ourselves as an RSG leader, and take this incredibly seriously, employing a team of industry experts, to ensure our games are enjoyed in a fun, healthy way,” the spokesperson told Sweepsy. 

“Our goal is to exceed industry standards and we offer our players a variety of readily available tools to aid in regulating their play, such as purchase limits, and options to permanently close their account, take a break or set account self-exclusion.”

VGW increasing age limit to 21 could make others follow suit

VGW began to roll out its new minimum age requirement changes on Feb. 12. 

On that day, players on VGW sites who were 18-20 could no longer make Gold Coin package purchases, but they could still play using whatever game currency remained in their account.

Then, on Feb. 19, players who were 18, 19, or 20 years old were no longer permitted to access any games on Chumba Casino, LuckyLand Slots, or Global Poker, even when playing with Gold Coins. They were also restricted from redeeming Sweeps Coins.

Finally, on April 17, players aged 18-20 will no longer have access to VGW sites and will be locked out until they reach 21. Once they turn 21, they must contact support to regain access to their account, as it will not be restored automatically.

VGW wasn’t the first to make its minimum age limit 21. (High 5 Casino and Stake.us were already 21-plus, for instance.) But it is arguably the most notable. Chumba Casino is probably the sweepstakes casino space’s top brand, and Global Poker leads the sweeps poker market.

The move to 21-plus is certainly eye-catching and could lead other sweeps operators to follow suit. Other responsible social gameplay features of VGW sites include:

• Activity reminders (which can be set for every 15, 30, 45, or 60 minutes)
• Purchase limits, play amount limits, and daily time limits
• Taking a Break (Tab) with options of one, three, seven, 14, or 30 days
• Self-exclusion
• Self-assessment 
• Information on various support organizations and sites where parents can set internet access limits for their children — “We recommend that you restrict their access to our Platform by using one of the below services,” reads that portion of VGW’s RSG Policy, which can be accessed in the footer menu of its sites

“This change to 21-plus is just the latest in the many initiatives reflecting our continuous commitment to providing a responsible and positive player experience,” the VGW spokesperson said.

Not many players younger than 21 anyway

A recent Sweepsy survey of sweepstakes players in Texas indicates VGW won’t be missing out on too much revenue by cutting off access for 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds.

Our survey was only conducted on respondents 21 and older. But only 7% of the respondents were in their 20s. Meanwhile, 24.8% were in their 30s, 26.8% were in their 40s, 20.8% were in their 50s, and 19.4% were 60 or older.

So the sweeps demographic skews toward middle age.

That’s why, from an industry standpoint, going to 21-plus makes a lot of sense for VGW. 

Now more than ever — as states continue to introduce bills to ban sweeps sites (hello, New York) and the American Gaming Association president mentions sweeps sites in the same breath as offshore betting sites — is a time for sweepstakes gaming operators to put responsible gaming at the forefront of their decision-making.

Even if the 18-20 age group did contribute a significant chunk of revenue, it still might be advisable for these operators to eat short-term revenue loss for long-term benefits of showing lawmakers and policy influencers they take responsible gaming seriously.

And it’s an even easier decision knowing just how little activity these sites get from 18-20-year-olds, compared to other age groups.

Google Ads announced some policy updates this month that will impact several gambling advertisers, including sweepstakes casinos, social casinos, and gambling affiliate sites. On the surface, there doesn’t seem to be much to the updates, but a few important details may have some sweeps casinos considering major changes to their operations. 

The guidelines require online gambling ads and gambling promoters like affiliates to abide by country-specific and state-specific gambling regulations. They also require operators and affiliates to apply for certification to run Google Ads. 

These changes will go into effect April 14.

So where exactly does this leave sweepstakes casino sites? 

Sweeps casinos constitute online gambling, Google says

The Updated Google Ads policy defines gambling as follows:

• “As defined by law under the regulatory framework in the country you are targeting with ads”
• “Anything that functions by staking something of value on the outcome of events or processes determined by an element of chance with the opportunity to win something of value”

While some could and will argue that sweepstakes casino sites don’t explicitly fall in either of these categories, Google clears up where it stands on that question in its list of examples of what is considered online gambling (emphasis added): 

• Online casinos or bookmakers
• Online bingo or slots sites or apps
• Online lottery ticket or online scratch card purchase
• Online sports betting
• Online gambling games played with virtual currencies or items that have real-world value

One thing to note: On the actual certification application for gambling ads in the U.S., there is no option to select sweepstakes casinos, only online casinos. So presumably, sweeps operators would need to select “online casinos” as the product they are requesting to advertise. 

According to Google’s U.S.-specific ad stipulations for online casinos:

• “Advertisers of horse racing, sports betting and online casinos must be licensed by the state entity in certain states where legal.”

Google support didn’t respond directly to Sweepsy‘s request for clarification on the “certain states where legal” specification, but Google did provide us with the following explanation regarding the updated policy:

“Gambling ads must target approved countries, have a landing page that displays information about responsible gambling and never target minors. Check local regulations for the areas that you want to target.”

This appears to confirm that Google will defer to local gambling regulations in its decisions whether to approve Google Ads certification for online casinos, including sweepstakes casinos (by Google’s categorization). 

In which states can sweeps casinos run Google Ads after April 14?

One possible interpretation is that any online casino sites (including sweepstakes casinos) looking to advertise in states with legal and regulated iGaming would need to be licensed by the state gaming operator to be eligible for certification to advertise in those states.  

On Google’s gambling ad application for a single-country license, only the following states are listed as options when you select “online casino” as the product you are advertising:

• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Michigan
• New Jersey
• Pennsylvania
• West Virginia
• Rhode Island
• Nevada

The first seven make a lot of sense — those are the only U.S. states with legal and regulated online casinos. Nevada, on the other hand, does not have legal online casinos. It does have regulated online poker and online sports betting (with some in-person requirements). Why Nevada is included in this short list is unclear.  

What this could mean for sweepstakes casino operators depends on how Google interprets licensing and legality of sweepstakes casinos in legal iGaming states and in states without regulated iGaming. What it could mean:

• Sweeps casinos won’t be able to run Google Ads in the eight states listed on the application (due to the state licensing requirement).
• Sweepstakes casinos (and regulated online casino brands) could be blocked from advertising in states other than the eight states listed, as the Google Ads application form does not even allow online casino companies to apply for Google Ads certification in the other 42 states. 

A less likely scenario is:

• Some sweeps casinos (presumably only ones that are 21-plus and have the required responsible gambling messaging) could apply and get Google Ads certification in any of the eight states listed above that they operate in, based on the sweepstakes law argument. Again, this would depend on Google’s interpretation of local and state regulations for online casinos and sweepstakes. 

If that last scenario does occur (like VGW getting certified to run ads in Pennsylvania or Delaware, for example), we can likely expect more of those states to follow legislative approaches like those in Mississippi (and Connecticut and Maryland) attempting to explicitly outlaw sweepstakes casinos in their legal code, to remove any ambiguity around local gambling law and regulation.  

For eligible U.S. online gambling products, advertisers also must, according to Google:

• “(1) Not target users under 21 or users outside of the state(s) where they are licensed”
• “(2) Include a warning against the dangers of addictive and compulsive gambling and related assistance information on the landing page or in the creative.” 

The second requirement means we will soon see responsible gambling disclaimers and problem gambling resource information on landing pages of online casino sites that didn’t previously have them. While this policy is specifically for online gambling sites applying for Google Ads certification, it is possible that RG messaging could also impact organic search rankings on Google search engine results pages, prompting even smaller casino operators to include them on home or landing pages. 

The requirements in that first bullet point could help explain some recent moves by a couple sweeps casino operators in particular.

Is VGW’s age requirement increase from 18 to 21 a reaction to Google Ads policy update?

While VGW’s decision to change its policy to 21-plus could be based on many reasons, the timing indicates it very well could be in part motivated by Google’s updated online gambling advertising policies. VGW raised minimum age from 18 to 21 just two days after Google’s gambling ads update announcement on Feb. 10.

As of Feb. 12, customers aged 18-20 on VGW sites Chumba Casino, LuckyLand Slots, and Global Poker were no longer allowed to purchase Gold Coins packages. Beginning Feb. 19, these players could no longer redeem Sweeps Coins and they will lose all their access to the sites on April 17. 

VGW’s move to increase its minimum age requirement to 21 could help lend more legitimacy to its brands, or at least help it defend itself against the ongoing and growing anti-sweeps casino sentiment. In addition to facing moves by state gaming regulators, attorneys general, and legislators to ban or expel sweeps operators from their states, VGW also continues to be the primary target of civil suits and class actions from customers. 

As the top dog for sweeps casino revenue, VGW is also among the biggest spenders when it comes to advertising of its products. A VGW financial report from 2023 showed that, after taxes, the company posted a total profit of $323.5 million. The report also showed VGW spent $275 million on advertising spend for its social sweepstakes gaming brands in 2023, up from $237 million in 2022. VGW’s Google and social media ads feature celebs like Ryan Seacrest and Michael Phelps, which help promote credibility and trust for their brands.  

For VGW (and other sweepstakes casino operators) to possibly gain approval for Google Ads in the U.S. as of April 14, they very clearly cannot be targeting users under 21. VGW’s revised age policy, which will be fully in effect on April 17, eliminates a major obstacle to gaining certification for Google Ads, a marketing strategy VGW is likely interested in maintaining. 

The pesky ol’ licensing question

Going back to the updated Google Ads policy above, online casinos (including sweepstakes casinos) are also forbidden from targeting “users outside of the state(s) where they are licensed.”

It’s not completely clear what this will mean for sweeps casinos in practice, or where in Google’s eyes sweeps casinos are legally entitled to operate. 

Will they only be excluded from Google advertising in regulated iGaming states (and Nevada, apparently)? Will they be able to get Google Ads certification to advertise in legal iGaming states if the states don’t explicitly outlaw them? 

Will they find a way to become licensed in regulated online casino states, as at least one bill in New Jersey has proposed?

It’s hard to tell at this point, but we should get a better idea once the policy updates go into effect.

Will others follow High 5, Stake.us decisions to pull out of regulated iGaming states?  

Perhaps also in response to Google’s Ad changes, High 5 Casino earlier this week updated its terms to exclude players in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and West Virginia effective Feb. 18, with accounts to be permanently closed after March 14 (as first reported by The Closing Line). Those are all regulated iGaming states. 

The other regulated online casino state, Michigan, as well as Nevada, were already on High 5’s restricted list.

Then, on Feb. 20, Stake.us also officially pulled out of all regulated iGaming states.

VGW currently restricts players from Connecticut, Idaho, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, and Washington. It will be interesting to see if VGW opts to pull out of any of the other states named in the Google Ads policy update (i.e. Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, or West Virginia). 

It’s also possible that we will see other high market share sweeps casino operators follow either or both moves — to raise the minimum age to 21 or pull out of regulated iGaming states (and Nevada) — particularly before the new Google gambling ads policy goes into effect on April 14. 

SPGA: Members ‘will comply’ with any requirements for Google Ads

A spokesperson for the Social and Promotional Games Association (SPGA) commented the following to Sweepsy about the Google Ads updates:

“Google has made multiple policy changes, as well as algorithm adjustments, over the last few years which have affected many industries. If looking to advertise with Google, SPGA member operators will comply with any requirements that company may have.”

One takeaway from that statement is that for many of the dozens of sweeps casinos with relatively small shares of the market (and lower marketing budgets), running Google Ads may not be in their budgets anyway. So they may be less inclined to make changes similar to ones that VGW and High 5 are making, or others based on Google gambling ads policies.

An influx of 1099s from sweepstakes casino sites has players wondering what their tax responsibilities are for Sweeps Coins winnings, and what is considered taxable gambling income. 

With the April 15 U.S. tax deadline fast approaching, we’ll start by answering your basic questions.

So far, players on a specific sweeps casinos Reddit thread have reported recently receiving 1099s from sites including:

• Modo.us
• High 5
• Chanced
• RealPrize

The short answer is, yes, you have to pay taxes on your winnings at sweepstakes casino sites. And yes, your total SC redemptions are considered taxable income.  

Why am I getting a 1099 from a sweeps casino when I lost money overall?

Many sweepstakes players may wonder why they’re getting 1099s from sweeps casino sites where they had net losses in 2024. 

Similar to W-2G tax forms you receive when hitting a slot jackpot at the casino or a big lottery win, the amount that gets reported to the IRS is based on gross winnings, or total payout.

So even if you purchased $1,000 in Gold Coins packages, if you redeemed $800 worth of Sweeps Coins, the full $800 is considered taxable income and is likely what will appear on your 1099. 

Unless you meet specific requirements for itemizing deductions, you can’t reduce your tax liability on winnings by offsetting them with losses. More about that below.  

Are winnings from sweepstakes casinos considered gambling wins? 

Yes. In the eyes of the IRS, any winnings from games of chance or wagers on events with uncertain outcomes is considered gambling income and is fully taxable. 

Even if you don’t receive a 1099 from a sweepstakes casino where you won real money by playing games of chance (i.e. slots or table games), you are technically required by tax law to report all winnings, including those from sweepstakes casinos, as taxable income (typically on Form 1040).  

Why 1099 vs. W-2G?

The difference between a 1099 and W-2G for gambling winnings is based on type and amount of winnings being reported. 

If you’ve ever hit a jackpot over $1,200 on a slot machine, you likely received a form W-2G from the brick-and-mortar casino. Tax form W-2G typically covers winnings from casinos, racetracks, and lotteries when they exceed certain thresholds: 

• $1,200 for bingo or slot machines
• $1,500 for keno
• $5,000 for poker tournaments

Form 1099 covers miscellaneous income like gambling winnings not included under form W-2G. The types of gambling typically falling in this category are non-traditional gambling activities including online contests (from skill-based to random draws), promotional prizes, and peer-to-peer betting pools. The reporting threshold for winnings in these categories is $600 and will typically be included on a 1099-MISC.  

Sweepstakes casinos fall in this miscellaneous gambling winnings category, meaning you may receive a 1099-MISC form if you redeemed $600 or more in virtual currency (Sweeps Coins or other) on a specific site in 2024. 

Can you deduct losses? 

You can only deduct losses up to the amount of wins you report as taxable income, but you can only do this if you itemize your deductions, rather than claiming the standard deduction.

For tax year 2024, the standard deduction for single taxpayers and married individuals filing separately is $14,600. For married taxpayers filing jointly, the standard deduction is $29,200.  

That means it wouldn’t even be beneficial to deduct your losses to offset your wins unless your wins (and losses) exceeded the standard deduction amounts above. If your total reported winnings do exceed the standard deduction amount for your tax filing status, you can itemize deductions and report gambling losses up to your total reported gambling winnings (on Schedule A). 

However, this is important: Be sure to consult a tax professional on whether your sweepstakes purchases are deductible — because Gold Coin package purchases are different than spending money on a regulated online casino site — and if it is in your best interest to itemize your deductions versus taking the standard deduction. 

In order to deduct losses by itemizing your deductions, the IRS also requires you to keep a log of all winnings and losses. Those logs must include:

• Date and type of gambling you engage in
• Name and address of the places where you gamble (or web address or casino app name)
• Amount you win and lose (net win/loss per session)
• People you gambled with (for in-person wagers) 

What if I already filed my taxes before I got my sweeps casino 1099s?

Technically, you are required by the IRS to file an amended return once you receive any new 1099s as your taxable income will be different than what you reported. The IRS form for amending a tax return is 1040-X. If you also need to update itemized deductions, you will need to fill out Schedule A as well.

On the amended form, you will need to provide the previously submitted gross income amount, the additional amount you’re adding (from the 1099), and the new total. TurboTax recommends waiting until the IRS has processed your original return before filing an amended return. If you’re claiming a refund in your amended return, it needs to be filed within three years of the original filing deadline, or within two years of paying the tax due for that year (if that date is later).  

If the amended return results in a higher tax penalty, you will need to mail a check for the difference (if you already paid the original tax due) or pay the difference to the IRS online. You can also mail a check along with the amended return to minimize any interest and penalties you might owe.

While it appears not all sweeps casinos are mailing out tax forms to those who redeemed more than $600, many of them are. As such, players would be wise to be prepared to pay taxes on any sweepstakes casino redemptions from 2024 (and going forward).

I got inspired the other day.

Friend of the site Dustin Gouker, a U.S. gambling consultant and author of The Closing Line newsletter, posted his Google search results for “Indiana online casinos” on LinkedIn over the weekend. The screenshot showed the top result, which was a table listing nine sites under a bold title of Indiana online casinos.

All nine sites were sweepstakes casino sites.

“As I search for Indiana online casinos to learn more about the dead online casino bill,” Gouker wrote, “this is what Google tells me fwiw.”

That led me to a story idea:

Let’s perform a Google search for “STATE NAME online casinos” with localized geolocation settings for all 50 states plus Washington, DC. The Google search engine results pages, or SERPs, are where the majority of interested gamblers or sweeps players find their gaming activities.

So how accurate are those SERPs? Are sweeps sites getting promoted over real-money sites — even in states where real-money iGaming is legal? Is Google providing inaccurate information? Do offshore betting sites have a presence?

I present to you the results of this Google experiment.

Yes, offshore betting showed up in 23.5% of searches

In 58.9% of the searches, just below the paid results or at the top of the organic results if there weren’t any paid ones, Google listed a table of nine “STATE NAME online casinos” just like the one in Gouker’s LinkedIn post.

Of that 58.9% (30 searches):

• 10 listed only sweeps casinos (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, California, Indiana, Louisiana, New York, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Wyoming).
• 12 (so 23.5% overall) listed at least one offshore site (Arkansas, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah). Bovada got eight listings, BetUS got seven, BetOnline got three, and Slots.lv got one.
• Two included real-money sportsbooks (Arizona, Kentucky — sports betting is legal in both of these states).
• Three included only real-money online casinos (West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey — iGaming is legal in all of these states).

Golden Hearts, affiliate pages dominate rankings

First of all, Golden Hearts Casino must be spending a lot in paid marketing. A result directing users to the sweepstakes operator’s site was at the top of 47% of the searches as a “sponsored” listing, which means the company paid for its link to appear, and it was among a handful of sponsored listings in five more searches.

I saw no paid search results for sweeps sites other than Golden Hearts.

In terms of the No. 1 organic search result, pages from affiliate sites promoting either sweeps casinos or real-money online casinos — depending on the legality in the market — were at the top in 88.2% of the searches.

Other notable advertising trends

• BetMGM was promoted in seven paid results — six for sports betting, and one (West Virginia) for iGaming.
• ESPN Bet promoted its sportsbook in six paid results.
• DraftKings appeared in two paid results — one for sports betting, one for iGaming (Connecticut).
• Bally Bet Casino appeared in four paid listings.
• Caesars Palace Casino appeared in two paid results.
• Mohegan and Borgata appeared in two, and Jackpot City, betPARX, and Play Gun Lake each had one.
• Pages promoting a list of promo deals for sweeps operators appeared in 19 paid results.
• The same types of pages promoting deals for offshore sites showed up in two paid results (Illinois, Massachusetts).
• That type of page for iGaming sites appeared in one result (Pennsylvania).
• State lotteries appeared in paid results in four search results (Virginia Lottery for Virginia and Washington, DC; then New Hampshire and Georgia).

Notable state online casino SERPs

Let’s start off with the seven states that currently allow real-money online casinos. How accurate were their SERPs?

Pennsylvania

Paid results: Bally Bet Casino, affiliate page promoting iGaming deals, Borgata Online Casino, Mohegan Sun Online Casino

Google suggested result: List of nine real-money online casinos

Top organic result: Affiliate page on PA online casinos

Any question marks or inaccuracies? No

Michigan

Paid results: ESPN Bet Sportsbook, affiliate page promoting iGaming deals, Play Gun Lake, Caesars Palace Casino

Google suggested result: None

Top organic result: A recent news article from the Detroit Free Press about the Michigan Gaming Control Board sending cease-and-desist letters to nine offshore operators.

Any question marks or inaccuracies? No

New Jersey

Paid results: Bally Bet Casino, betPARX Casino, Borgata Online Casino

Google suggested result: List of nine real-money online casinos

Top organic result: The New Jersey Attorney General’s page listing all the regulated iGaming sites in the state.

Any question marks or inaccuracies? No

Connecticut

Paid results: DraftKings Casino, Mohegan Online Casino, Golden Hearts

Google suggested result: None

Top organic result: Affiliate page on CT online casinos

Any question marks or inaccuracies? The sponsored listing from Golden Hearts isn’t egregious or anything, but it’s technically not an iGaming site in a state where iGaming is active. 

West Virginia

Paid results: BetMGM Casino, Caesars Palace Casino, ESPN Bet Sportsbook

Google suggested result: List of nine real-money online casinos

Top organic result: Affiliate page on WV online casinos

Any question marks or inaccuracies? No

Delaware

Paid results: Golden Hearts, Bally Casino by BetRivers

Google suggested result: List of nine options — seven sweeps sites, two retail casinos

Top organic result: Apple store listing for Bally Casino by BetRivers

Any question marks or inaccuracies? Yes — there was a heavy presence of sweeps casinos in a search that technically should focus on real-money gambling in Delaware.

Rhode Island

Paid results: Bally Bet Casino, Golden Hearts

Google suggested result: None

Top organic result: Direct link to Bally Bet Casino

Any question marks or inaccuracies? Not really — the Golden Hearts ad in the sponsored results isn’t a huge deal.

States considering online casino bills

Now, let’s focus on states currently considering online casino bills.

Illinois

Paid results: Three separate ads for sweeps promo pages on affiliate sites

Google suggested result: List of nine options — six sweeps sites, two retail casinos, and one offshore betting site

Top organic result: Affiliate page on IL sweeps casinos

Anything to note? Yes — seeing an offshore gambling site as a suggested option isn’t ideal.

Maryland

Paid results: ESPN Bet Sportsbook, affiliate page for sweeps, BetMGM Sportsbook

Google suggested result: None

Top organic result: Affiliate page for sweepstakes casinos

Anything to note? Well, sweepstakes casinos technically aren’t online casinos.

New Hampshire

Paid results: New Hampshire iLottery, Golden Hearts

Google suggested result: None

Top organic result: Affiliate page for sweepstakes casinos

Anything to note? Sweepstakes casinos technically aren’t online casinos. The NH iLottery also used the term “online casino games” in its sponsored result, so it’s clearly trying to tap into that search market.

Massachusetts

Paid results: BetMGM Sportsbook, two affiliate pages for sweeps promos, affiliate page for offshore betting promos

Google suggested result: None

Top organic result: Affiliate page for sweepstakes casinos

Anything to note? The presence of an affiliate page promoting offshore betting sites is far from ideal for this SERP, and it speaks to the motivation for Massachusetts’ iGaming bill.

New York

Paid results: Two affiliate pages with sweeps promos

Google suggested result: List of nine sweeps sites

Top organic result: Affiliate page for NY sweepstakes casinos

Anything to note? Sweeps sites technically aren’t online casinos.

One more …

Several of the states we’ve already reviewed are either considering bills that would ban sweeps sites (multiple states) or regulate them (New Jersey). But there’s one more considering a ban that hasn’t been specifically highlighted yet.

Mississippi

Paid results: Golden Hearts, DraftKings Sportsbook

Google suggested result: List of eight sweeps sites and one offshore site

Top organic result: Affiliate page for sweepstakes casinos

Anything to note? Seeing Bovada in the suggested results for “Mississippi online casinos” is the exact opposite of what regulators would want, and it makes the presence of sweeps sites seem irrelevant. 

Methodology

I accessed state-specific Google search data by using valentin.app. I geolocated each search based on the market. So, for instance, I used the geolocation of “New York, USA” for the “new york online casinos” search, and so on.

These searches all took place during the evening of Feb. 15.

A case that had potential to throw a wrench in sweepstakes casino operations can now be chalked up to another win, or at least no contest, for sweeps operator VGW and sweepstakes payment providers. 

Knapp vs. VGW Holdings Limited et al was officially dismissed on Feb. 6 and remaining disputes transferred to the District of Delaware for closing on Feb. 7. 

The involvement of payment processors Worldpay and Fidelity Information Services, Inc. (FIS) posed a potential issue for sweeps operators. If payment providers start pulling out or blocking purchases at sweepstakes gaming sites, it could have a devastating effect on the industry.

But that won’t be happening just yet at least. 

Two clauses that worked in favor of VGW in the Florida case in question were forum selection and choice of law clauses, which dictate that any disputes fall in the jurisdiction of the state of Delaware. As a result, Knapp’s attempt to remand the case back to Florida state court where the case was filed was denied.

Case jurisdiction details

Knapp was seeking to bring the case back to Florida state court, where he may have better chances of a favorable ruling. But Judge Carlos Mendoza of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, denied that motion, finding federal jurisdiction was proper in this case. 

From the the ruling: “Because the amount in controversy and the numerosity requirements are clearly stated in the notice of removal and supporting declaration … the Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.”

Knapp and attorneys also argued that the case should be remanded based on “local controversy” and “home state” exceptions. 

The court denied the local controversy claim as it stipulates that in the three years preceding the current case filing, no other class action “asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons” has been filed. But there was another similar suit brought against VGW in that timeframe, Middle District of Florida case Doe v. VGW Malta Ltd., which was dismissed without prejudice. 

The home state exception, which requires that the primary defendant is a citizen of Florida, was also rejected based on the grounds that VGW is an Australian citizen (headquartered in Australia) and has no Florida stakeholders. 

Ruling favors VGW (and payment providers)

The court ruled in favor of VGW, Worldpay, and FIS, granting all entities’ motions to transfer and otherwise dismiss. The ruling also dismissed the claims against those parties without prejudice, and Judge Mendoza ordered the clerk “to transfer the claims against VGW Holdings Limited, VGW Luckyland Inc, Fidelity Information Services, Inc., and Worldpay, LLC to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for all further proceedings and to close this file.”

The transfer of claims was based on two clauses in VGW’s terms and conditions, which the plaintiff technically agreed to in order to register an account on the site.

The forum selection and choice of law clauses work to protect VGW (and other sweepstakes operators), and so far they have had a great deal of success in doing so.

A previous ruling declared that “Forum-selection clauses are presumptively valid and enforceable unless the plaintiff makes a ‘strong showing’ that enforcement would be unfair or unreasonable under the circumstances.” In this case, the plaintiff failed to prove the latter. 

Legal protections and upholding of sweepstakes clauses

VGW’s forum selection clause states:

Subject to clause 23, the parties agree that any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms of Service, or the breach, termination or invalidity of these Terms of Service, will be submitted exclusively to the courts in the State of Delaware in the United States, and you and we consent to the venue and personal jurisdiction of those courts. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties agree that either party may move to compel arbitration or to enforce an arbitral award issued hereunder before any court of competent jurisdiction.

VGW’s choice of law clause states:

These Terms and Conditions, your use of the Platform and our entire relationship will be governed, and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware in the United States, without regard for its choice of conflict of law principles.

The plaintiff made some arguments as to why those clauses shouldn’t be upheld in this case, but none of them were accepted by the court. 

One such argument was that the forum selection and choice of law provisions should not be enforced “because the Defendants fraudulently induced Plaintiff into agreeing to the Terms” which “falsely state that VGW Group does not offer real money gambling and that VGW Group operates legally in Florida and Delaware.”  

Indeed, the court cites a previous ruling that the “court will invalidate a choice clause only if ‘the inclusion of that clause in the contract was the product of fraud or coercion.’” However, the ruling noted there was no indication to substantiate that the forum selection and choice of law clauses were formed by fraud. 

Knapp also argued that “the forum selection and choice of law clauses should not be enforced because the underlying contracts are void against public policy as illegal gambling contracts.”

The ruling said this claim fails thanks to a previous court ruling that rejected the same argument, stating: “A forum selection clause is viewed as a separate contract that is severable from the agreement in which it is contained.”

What did we learn?

What this case and several others have demonstrated is that sweepstakes casinos in general have solid legal protections baked into their terms and conditions, which every customer must agree to before signing up. 

These binding agreements serve to help companies like VGW avoid expensive trials and merits-based judgments when civil cases do arise. 

One such legal fine print deals with arbitration clauses, which require disputes to be settled via arbitration rather than having their day in court. This legal clause has worked in favor of sweeps gaming sites.

Similar technicalities played in favor of the defendant in another case brought against VGW by Fair Gaming Advocates Georgia Inc., which was dismissed in Georgia back in December due to lack of jurisdiction.

After that ruling, US gambling attorney Daniel Wallach noted on LinkedIn: “From arbitration clauses to jurisdictional defenses, there are procedural challenges every step of the way (in sweepstakes lawsuits).” 

VGW is also facing litigation in New York and New Jersey under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The plaintiffs in those cases allege VGW is running illegal gambling operations under the guise of social casinos.  

According to Wallach, it’s highly unlikely that any of the cases launched against VGW or other sweeps operators will have definitive impact.  

“No class action lawsuit will be transformative or bring industry-wide change because they will either get dismissed on a procedural motion or take years before ever reaching trial, only to ultimately be settled,” he told Next.io.

Perhaps that is why so far in 2025 we’ve seen a flurry of alternative approaches to countering sweeps operators. Those include more cease-and-desist letters and a number of anti-sweepstakes bill proposals, which stand to be more effective in the eyes of the law.

There are three main storylines pulsating through the gambling industry right now.

1. Pressure is mounting on sweepstakes operators as more and more states start to position themselves against the dual-currency gaming model.
2. The annual burst of excitement as new iGaming bills are filed is in full swing.
3. More states are looking at online gambling revenue and thinking, Man, can we get some more of that flowing our way?

Storyline No. 3 is getting the least attention, but it could arguably have the largest impact.

In the past year, we have already seen Ohio double its sports betting tax rate from 10% to 20% and Illinois change its 15% tax rate to a progressive 20-40% scale. New Jersey also considered a tax hike from 15% to 30%. There are two bills in Michigan that would raise the sports betting tax 0.1% and the online casino tax by 1% for each tax bracket. Louisiana for a time considered a bill that would have rocketed its sports betting tax rate to 51%, like New York’s.

Last month, in his 2026 budget proposal, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore suggested the state double its sports betting tax rate from 15% to 30%.

And just this week, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine proposed raising his state’s sports betting tax percentage — again — from 20% to 40%.

Lack of new regulated gaming options hurting existing operators

Lawmakers are increasingly turning to online gambling as a source for tax revenue. Do you think all those legislators in states proposing iGaming bills this legislative cycle just love to play some online slots? No. (Well, maybe.)

They, like all of us, really, have an eye for money.

And they see the mammoth revenue potential of online casinos and, thus, the mammoth tax revenue potential.

The problem is … momentum for online casino legalization is essentially at a standstill. Yes, there are some bills being considered, but you’d be hard-pressed to find an industry stakeholder who would bet their house on any of them passing.

So … what’s a lawmaker to do?

Ah, yes. Increase the taxes on the online gambling that’s already allowed.

Operators are literally asking customers to email lawmakers

Real-money operators are, uh, not thrilled.

The Sports Betting Alliance, which consists of DraftKings, FanDuel, Fanatics, and BetMGM, has pre-written forms that Michigan and Ohio residents can fill out and send to lawmakers, urging them not to raise online gambling taxes. 

Here’s what the Ohio form says:

Dear [Lawmaker],

I’m concerned about the push for even higher taxes on legal sports betting across the country, that’s why  I’m asking you to protect legal sports betting and keep it fair for Ohio fans like me. 

I love game day and part of the reason is because of online sports betting. But the government imposing higher taxes means fewer bonuses, worse odds, and less competition — hurting the very people and legal operators who play by the rules.

Let’s stop raising taxes on hard-working Ohioans and the games we enjoy. That’s not the way we do it here in the Buckeye State.

During a Gaming Americas webinar in November, Martin Lycka, senior vice president for American regulatory affairs and responsible gaming at Entain, expressed frustration with the growing trend of lawmakers eyeing increased tax rates on established operators.

“Any other state that’s considering raising taxes, hoping that could fix all the other problems, well, I would strongly suggest that’s not necessarily the way you’re better off,” he said. “That’s the key message.”

So … could sweeps regulation actually help?

Now, here’s a thought: Might these lawmakers be less eager to inflate taxes on established operators if they could simply regulate and add taxes to a gray market industry that already exists in their state? Say, oh, perhaps the sweepstakes industry?

At this point, it’s a fair argument to say states may be more likely to regulate sweepstakes casinos than legalize online casinos. (Although it’s a fine line.) However, traditionally, real-money operators have been some of the stoutest opponents of sweepstakes gaming regulation.

Could that change as more and more states consider raising online gambling taxes?

Might real-money operators see sweepstakes regulation as a way to escape jacked-up taxes?

It’s an interesting thought, but one that — at least currently — doesn’t hold much weight, according to US gambling consultant Dustin Gouker.

“I don’t think higher tax rates will play into how regulated operators view the sweeps industry in the short term,” Gouker told Sweepsy. “I believe most of the top operators remain pretty aligned against it. Correct or not, they mostly see it as competitive to their existing business now and in the future.

“I also don’t find it terribly likely we get widespread sweepstakes regulation or taxation in the short term.”

Time will tell if real-money operators reach an inflection point — a point where the trend of increased tax rates becomes so widespread that, perhaps, stepping out of the way of sweeps regulation becomes a viable path to keeping more revenue in their pockets.

But, for now, that doesn’t seem likely. Real-money operators will try other options — such as lobbying and urging customers to contact lawmakers — to stymie the trend of increased tax rates.

My email inbox is not happy with me at the moment.

It likes order, cleanliness, tranquility.

It thrives on a steady flow of read-and-delete and gags at the very thought of unreads piling on top of one another.

Well, email inbox, I profusely apologize for what I’ve done to you these past two weeks.

Or, rather, what sweepstakes casinos have done to you.

Well, that escalated quickly

Here’s the deal: I signed up for seven sweeps casino sites on Jan. 8 for a story that analyzed arbitration clauses in terms and conditions and if those same clauses (or similar clauses) showed up in separate terms and conditions for specific promotions. Those seven sites were:

• High 5 Casino
• McLuck
• Chanced
• WOW Vegas
• DingDingDing
• Crown Coins
• RealPrize

Then, from Jan. 8-20, I received 143 promotional emails from those seven operators. That’s 11 per day over the 13 days, and it was really more like 12 days, because I signed up pretty late at night on Jan. 8.

I received the most emails from DingDingDing at a whopping 63. That’s nearly five a day.

Chanced was the least abrasive, at just eight total emails.

Only one email focused on responsible gaming

Of the 143 emails, only one had anything to do with responsible gaming. That one came from Chanced — the welcome email, after I’d confirmed my email address. The subject line: Chanced Responsible Social Gaming Introduction. The other 142 revolved around unclaimed bonuses and exclusive offers and 40% sales and big jackpots and a whole lot of FREE in all caps and plenty of emojis to make my once-pristine inbox look like the promo poster for a junk mail convention.

It was a lot. Plain and simple. Probably too much.

For me, it was too much because of the sheer volume and annoyance. But I’m lucky to say I don’t have a gambling problem. I signed up for these sweeps sites to dig through the terms and conditions, and that’s it. I haven’t played one game so far.

For those with gambling problems, there could be a deeper impact of this bombardment of grab-you-by-your-eyeballs advertising.

I’ll make something clear: I don’t fault sweeps operators for this style of promotion. We don’t bash Bud Light for its incessant ads during every sporting event that has ever happened ever. In fact, in a couple weeks, we’ll all celebrate the comedy of Super Bowl commercials for beer and liquor that very well could have the same effect on alcoholics that sweeps email blasts may have on those with gambling addictions.

The effects in either situation are awful. But the solution is not to prevent Bud Light from making those commercials, just like the solution shouldn’t be to prevent sweeps sites from their full-court-press advertising campaigns.

However …

Now is not the time for sweeps operators to mess around with RG practices

Bud Light isn’t fighting the same war that sweeps operators are right now.

Sweepstakes gaming is glued down to a petri dish under the collective microscope of the gambling industry. Industry stakeholders and lawmakers find themselves analyzing the nature of the dual-currency gaming model and debating whether to ban the sites or regulate them.

Now, more than ever, is a time for sweeps operators to convince us all that they have the players’ well-being in mind, that they advocate responsible gaming and promote responsible gaming tools and messaging on their sites, that they keep responsible gaming in mind with all their current practices. Make no mistake, that’s why the Social and Promotional Games Association, formed by operators to advocate sweepstakes gaming as more and more power-brokers in the US began paying attention to the industry, released a Code of Conduct in December. That code included four main tenets:

• Age verification to limit purchases to those 18 and older
• Proper identity verification (Know Your Customer or KYC)
• Customer location verification
• Anti-money laundering policies to monitor transactions

That’s great. It’s a good foundation. And the SPGA said it will add more to its Code of Conduct in the future. You can be sure anything it adds will have a responsible gaming flavor.

So that’s where we come back to the 143 emails in my inbox.

Pull advertising vs. push advertising

It’s a lot. Yes, I can choose to unsubscribe from each operator’s emails (and I sure did). But that’s not the point.

It’s in the best interest of sweeps operators to walk on proverbial eggshells when it comes to responsible gaming in 2025, which is going to be a pivotal year for the future of the industry. And the weight of 143 emails cracks those eggshells.

These emails are an example of “push advertising” — where a company sends marketing material directly to a client even if that client hasn’t requested it.

Massachusetts regulators discussed push advertising — and its responsible gambling implications — in March 2023 as the state legalized online sports betting. At first, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission wasn’t going to allow sports betting affiliate sites to sign deals with sportsbooks that would allow operators to pay affiliates for each customer they sent to the sportsbook.

What I just outlined is an example of “pull advertising” — where a company fosters interest and demand organically by creating content customers find on their own. In the case of the sports betting affiliates, interested sports bettors in Massachusetts would Google search terms like “MA sportsbook promo codes” and find the sportsbook deals on the various affiliate sites.

As a way to convince the MGC to finally allow these “Cost-Per-Acquisition” (CPA) affiliate deals, Katherine McCord, an attorney representing affiliate network Better Collective, relayed the potential pitfalls of push advertising vs. pull advertising in the gambling sector.

“By prohibiting CPA … operators will instead focus their marketing budgets away from pull advertising (such as agreements with marketing affiliates) and towards push advertising,” McCord said. “Push advertising is shown across all age demographics and doesn’t include the same responsible gaming resources and educational content that marketing affiliates provide.”

My inbox has a message for the seven sweeps sites I signed up for: Hey, maybe let’s go ahead and try some more pull advertising and ease up on the push advertising, OK?

So says the inbox.

If 2024 was the year sweepstakes gaming burst into the gaming industry’s collective conscience, 2025 will be the year it becomes the industry’s new obsession.

Prepare for a whole lot of discussion and perhaps some significant decisions involving the sweepstakes market, where the dual-currency gaming model has invited interest and speculation from players, real-money operators, lawmakers, courts, and more.

Here are seven storylines to follow in the burgeoning sweepstakes industry in 2025.

Market saturation may drive mergers and acquisitions

Let’s play a game: Type “sweepstakes casino sites” in Google right now. Click on any of the lists that pop up. You’ll probably see 20, 30, 40, even 50 different options, depending on what Google result you click.

Alex, what is market saturation?

A bunch of smart people in the gaming industry realized the barriers to revenue are more minimal in sweepstakes gaming, and they’ve flocked to create sweepstakes products.

But there isn’t endless room on the sweepstakes bandwagon. And, despite the relatively low cost of entry compared to that of a regulated market, there’s just not enough money to support 50-plus viable platforms.

So, that’s where mergers and acquisitions may come into play in 2025.

Does VGW Holdings, the owner of brands like Chumba Casino, LuckyLand Slots, and Global Poker, purchase some of the smaller-but-mighty brands? Do operators like High 5 Games and Heuston Gaming (Sweeptastic) merge to compete with VGW?

More states may follow NY and FL’s lead with prize limits

With no federal laws applying to internet sweepstakes gambling, it’s up to each individual state to govern the gray market. Washington and Michigan have banned the sites entirely.

It’s doubtful other states follow that hard-lined stance, as least in the short-term.

Perhaps a more likely near-term adjustment could come in the form of prize limits. Right now, in Florida and New York, players can redeem cash prizes of only up to $5,000.

If states are looking to make a statement to sweepstakes operators but not boot them out entirely, prize limits are a viable option.

Will operators tweak the sweepstakes gaming model?

Even if it doesn’t happen in 2025 — or even by 2030 — it does feel inevitable that the current sweepstakes gaming model will be forced to change at some point.

So might the operators want to get ahead of that change?

At the heart of any lawsuit against sweepstakes operators is their dual-currency gaming model — where one currency (Gold Coins) is purely for in-game use, and the second currency (Sweeps Coins) can be redeemed for cash prizes. The easiest way to get Sweeps Coins is to buy Gold Coin packages that come with Sweeps Coins as a “free” bonus.

Perhaps operators could make it so Sweeps Coins can only be used on certain games, or for certain durations of time. Perhaps operators will give players an option to play a version of the platform with ads, where they can’t purchase any Gold Coins but instead rack up GC and SC via time spent on the platform. Operators will still make revenue via ads, but there will be no overspending worries on the player’s side.

That’s just spitballing. But the change would need to have responsible gaming top of mind.

Impact on the stalled US iGaming momentum

Wyoming is just about the only state with near-term potential for online casinos, and that market size isn’t going to move the needle. And iGaming bills in Virginia and Maryland aren’t obvious contenders yet. Same story with the online casino rumblings in Louisiana.

The retail cannibalization argument has just about frozen the industry and created a gridlock that, frankly, doesn’t appear anywhere near close to being broken.

However, if sweepstakes gaming continues to explode at its current rate (85% compound annual growth rate from 2019-23, per Eilers & Krejcik), that will add fuel to iGaming proponents’ arguments. They’ve worked hard to persuade lawmakers and voters that unregulated offshore sites are collecting boatloads of tax dollars from gamblers in states where online casinos aren’t legal.

These sweepstakes sites are doing the same thing.

So can a larger sweepstakes market with more widespread visibility give online casino proponents another piece of ammo and actually help them convince lawmakers to legalize iGaming sooner?

Will retail casinos join forces with sweepstakes operators?

It’s smart business to take a look at sweepstakes gaming right now.

So, might we start to see brick-and-mortar casinos partner with sweepstakes operators, much like they’ve partnered with the BetMGMs and FanDuels of the regulated world in states with real-money online casinos?

We’ve already seen tribal casinos in California partner with operators like Sparket to provide free-to-play iGaming with prizes built around rewards points or in-person experiences at the casino.

It feels like the relationship would be beneficial. The brick-and-mortar casino(s) would promote the sweepstakes site and likely advertise some sort of sign-up special, giving that site an extra dose of visibility in that market. Meanwhile, the retail casino makes a chunk of money from whatever deal they struck with the sweepstakes operator.

These would by no means be big-money deals — it’s not like the sweepstakes sites would have to rely on these partnerships to gain access to a state’s regulated market.

But they’d be something.

Some sort of decision will move the needle in 2025

These state-level class-action lawsuits currently being waged against sweepstakes operators likely won’t move the needle at all in terms of changing the sweepstakes industry, said Daniel Wallach, a US gaming law and sports betting attorney.

“From arbitration clauses to jurisdictional defenses, there are procedural challenges every step of the way,” Wallach wrote in a LinkedIn post after a Georgia judge sided with VGW in a recent sweepstakes lawsuit. “And those cases that do survive the gauntlet will either take years to litigate or inevitably get settled (see Kentucky). VGW will not want to risk going to trial, where the possibility of an adverse judgment could have national impacts.”

Instead, Wallach said any judicial decision of note would have to stem from lawmaking bodies and organizations, not private citizens.

“The cases that will ultimately decide the legality of the ‘dual-currency’ sweepstakes model — if it ever gets decided — will be those instituted by governmental bodies, such as State AGs and gaming regulatory agencies,” Wallach wrote, “and likely only after a cease-and-desist order that goes unheeded. Coming in 2025.”

Let’s see if the SPGA has any real teeth

Sweepstakes operators formed the Social and Promotional Games Association to advocate the industry as scrutiny intensifies. A big part of that is trying to promote responsible game play.

The SPGA unveiled a Code of Conduct for its members in December. Its four main tenets are:

• Age verification to limit purchases to those 18 and older
• Proper identity verification (Know Your Customer or KYC)
• Customer location verification
• Anti-money laundering policies to monitor transactions

In its release announcing the Code of Conduct, the SPGA said it would unveil more pillars of the code in the coming months “and engage an external firm to certify member compliance with the Code.”

So it sounds like there will be a certification process.

But will there be penalties if a member doesn’t abide by the Code of Conduct? Will there be fines?

Or … will that operator just lose its certification but continue to do whatever the heck it wants?

In other words: Can the SPGA in any way like a regulatory body could? Doubtful. But we’ll see if it develops some teeth.

Sweepstakes contests offer the opportunity to dream about life-changing amounts of money. The premise is simple – submit an entry and wait for the Publishers Clearing House “Prize Patrol” to show up at your house. 

Or (as in the case of the Starbucks for Life contest or the infamous McDonald’s Monopoly game), purchase items and try to uncover that rare game piece that grants you a big prize.

While the odds of nabbing millions of dollars in a sweepstakes are long, you can’t win if you don’t try. Here are the five biggest sweepstakes contests in the US that you can enter every year, which includes instructions on how to enter:

5. TLC Sweepstakes

TLC is a TV network that exists as a sister brand to HGTV and The Food Network and offers sweepstakes contests throughout the year, 

While the prizes awarded in TLC’s sweepstakes don’t quite stack up to the HGTV Dream Home Giveaway, the consistency of the contests earns a place on our list. The prizes awarded in the contests generally range from $5,000 to $10,000.

Those might not be life-changing sums, but you get many, many chances to win throughout the year. The current TLC sweepstakes, called the Holiday Central $5K Giveaway, runs through January 9, 2025.

You can enter the contest by visiting the TLC website or the Discovery website and navigating to the “Sweepstakes” link at either. The contest rules limit players to one entry per day.

The odds of winning the Holiday Central $5K Giveaway depend on the number of entrants, and TLC doesn’t really provide much more than that in terms of estimated odds. Good news though – you’ll find TLC contests running virtually year-round.

4. Starbucks For Life Sweepstakes

Does a lifetime supply of Starbucks coffee sound good to you? If so, then it’s time to get your entries in for the Starbucks for Life sweepstakes contest.

The grand prize of this contest is “Starbucks for Life,” which translates to one free standard menu beverage or food item per day for 30 years. Starbucks estimates the value of this grand prize at $70,518.

This contest is not a winner-take-all sweepstakes, as up to five grand prizes will be awarded. Lots of other prizes are up for grabs as well, including a $1,000 Delta gift card, a $500 Marriott Bonvoy gift card, and Starbucks Rewards stars.

The Starbucks for Life contest tasks players with collecting game pieces, which you get by purchasing items at Starbucks. You can also enter the sweepstakes without making a purchase by visiting the Starbucks for Life website.

This contest runs yearly through January 5, 2025. This sweepstakes will award more than 10 million prizes total, and while Starbucks doesn’t provide the exact chances of winning the grand prize, you can rest assured that the five big winners will be on the good end of some very unlikely odds.

3. Microsoft Rewards Presents: A Million Dollar Sweepstakes

We have good news and bad news regarding the Microsoft Rewards Presents: A Million Dollar Sweepstakes.

The good news – this is a real, legitimate sweepstakes contest with a $1 million grand prize on the line. The bad news – the deadline for entry is 11:59 pm Pacific Time on December 31, 2024, and that deadline is rapidly approaching.

This contest provides a couple of different ways to enter. The easiest way to get into the contest is by visiting the sweepstakes website’s home page, clicking the “claim your free entry” button and providing the requested details from there.

You can also submit five entries by redeeming 2,000 Microsoft Rewards points. Additionally, you can enter by mail by following the instructions located within the Official Rules of the contest (you can find a link to these rules near the bottom of the sweepstakes site homepage).

In addition to the million-dollar grand prize, this contest will also award 10 secondary prizes of $10,000 each. Two $10,000 prizes will go out in each of five jurisdictions (United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Germany).

Microsoft states that the odds of winning the grand prize depend on the total number of entries for the contest. Keeping in mind that this sweepstakes isn’t just limited to the U.S., you can safely guess that those odds are astronomical.

2. Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes

The legendary Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes is perhaps the most famous sweepstakes contest in the U.S. 

This contest began in 1967, and you’ve very likely seen the commercials where the PCH “Prize Patrol” shows up at a winner’s house, giant seven-figure check in hand. The biggest prizes in the PCH Sweepstakes have included a $10 million prize and a “$5,000 a week for life” prize.

The Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes is still going strong, and you still have a few weeks to get your entry in for the current edition of the contest. The current contest (aka “Giveaway No. 19990”) will award a grand prize of $1,250,000.

Unlike some of the other contests on our list, PCH provides the exact odds of winning the $1.25 million prize. If you want to claim this grand prize, you have a 1 in 6,750,000,000 chance of winning.

You can enter this long-running contest by visiting the PCH Sweepstakes website and filling out the entry form. You can submit one entry per day, and the deadline to enter is midnight on Feb. 26, 2025.

1. HGTV Dream Home Giveaway

The aptly named HGTV Dream Home Giveaway functions as an annual sweepstakes contest that awards a “dream home” as the grand prize. The location of the dream home changes from year to year, and the house itself is usually worth seven figures.

The winner of the 2025 HGTV Dream Home Giveaway gets a grand prize package that’s worth more than $2.2 million. 

This year’s dream home is located in the countryside of Bluffton, South Carolina. The three-bedroom, three-and-a-half-bathroom home spans more than 3,000 square feet and is described by interior designer Brian Patrick Flynn as “the perfect blend of Lowcountry elegance and modern comfort.”

HGTV began running this sweepstakes in 1997, and it’s become one of the most popular contests in the U.S. The 2025 edition of the Dream Home Giveaway began on Dec. 17, 2024, and runs through February 14, 2025.

You can submit up to two entries daily for the contest; one per day on the HGTV website and one per day on the Food Network website. The chances of winning the grand prize depend on how many total entries are submitted, but we estimate that the eventual winner will have to beat odds of around 150,000,000-to-1.

The grand prize package also includes $100,000 cash, a 2025 Mercedes Benz GLC, and a five-year supply of Vida paper towels.

The contest winner can also opt to take a $750,000 cash prize instead of the house.