California DOJ Seizes Slot-Style Machines at Santa Anita as Gambling Enforcement Fight Widens

Agents from the California Department of Justice removed 26 “Racing on Demand” wagering terminals from the Arcadia racetrack on Saturday, Jan. 17. The enforcement action was less than two days after the machines quietly debuted on the grandstand floor.

Authorities confiscated the devices, which allowed customers to wager on previously run horse races through a slot-machine-style interface, similar to historical horse racing terminals used in other states, along with cash inside the machines.

The seizure followed immediate objections from tribal gaming interests, calling the machines illegal.

A Short-Lived Rollout

Santa Anita quietly installed the terminals on Thursday, Jan. 15. Players could place $1 bets on archived races using a “three-by-three” format. They would select the top three finishers in three separate past races.

Track officials described them as a lawful pari-mutuel wagering product. Santa Anita argued the terminals complied with state law because wagers were pooled among players rather than banked by the house. That, the company claimed, places them under the California Horse Racing Board’s pari-mutuel framework.

But tribal gaming leaders said the outcome was inevitable.

“There was always only one outcome out of this,” Victor Rocha, conference chair of the Indian Gaming Association, told the Los Angeles Times. “They know it. I know it. Especially after what happened with sweepstakes and what’s currently happening with prediction markets.”

On Saturday evening, DOJ agents arrived at the track after live racing concluded and removed all of the machines. Santa Anita later confirmed that the action was taken under the direction of the Attorney General’s office.

Santa Anita Vows Legal Challenge

The Stronach Group, which owns Santa Anita, said it had provided the attorney general’s office with a detailed legal analysis nearly a year ago and maintained the terminals were lawful under existing racing statutes.

Scott Daruty, senior vice president of the Stronach Group, said in a statement to the Los Angeles Times:

“We stand firmly behind our legal analysis. Racing On Demand operates under California’s long-standing pari-mutuel wagering laws using a wager that regulators already approved. Attorney General [Rob] Bonta received our comprehensive legal analysis nearly a year ago… His office had ample time to raise concerns. They did not. We proceeded on solid legal ground, and since the state is choosing to challenge that now, we’re fully prepared to defend ourselves. We’re confident the law is clear.”

At the center of the dispute is whether the terminals fall under pari-mutuel wagering or function as illegal slot machines. Racetracks are authorized to offer pari-mutuel wagering. Meanwhile, Native American tribes hold exclusive rights over most casino-style gambling under state compacts.

Tribes have actively defended their exclusivity, challenging nearly all unregulated gambling in the state. A tribal representative told the Los Angeles Times the machines would provoke a “full-throated response” from tribes, arguing they violated the state’s tribal gaming compacts.

Part of a Broader Gambling Enforcement Campaign

The Santa Anita seizure is the latest example of broader enforcement and legal developments unfolding across California. In the past year alone, tribal gaming interests and regulators have moved against products they view as breaching tribal exclusivity.

For years, tribes have been locked in litigation with California’s cardrooms over so-called “player-dealer” games. These are blackjack- and baccarat-style offerings that tribes argue are illegal house-banked casino games disguised through rotating third-party proposition players.

Last year, California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office proposed regulatory changes to the state’s cardroom rules, which would eliminate the third-party proposition players and significantly change the rules around blackjack. The changes received considerable backlash from the industry and municipalities that heavily depend on tax revenue.

In July 2025, Bonta issued a legal opinion concluding that daily fantasy sports are illegal under California law. In the opinion, he classified both against-the-house pick’em contests and player-vs-player contests as unlawful. Still, many operators switched to the latter. They argue that removing the house as a contestant makes the contest legal under state law.

Furthermore, last year, California enacted legislation prohibiting dual-currency sweepstakes casinos. Over 50 tribes backed the ban, even as a few smaller tribes opposed it.

Another ongoing legal battle is against prediction markets, such as Kalshi. Tribes have argued that sports event contracts function as unlicensed sports betting and violate California’s constitutional framework, even when offered through federal financial market channels.

Against that backdrop, the rapid intervention at Santa Anita reflects a consistent strategy: preventing new gambling products from gaining traction outside the tribal compact system before courts or lawmakers can weigh in.

What Comes Next

The seizure is likely to trigger litigation over whether racetracks can offer games like Racing on Demand without crossing into tribal-controlled gambling. If Santa Anita challenges the DOJ action, the case could become the latest test of the long-standing boundaries among racing regulators, the attorney general’s office, and tribal gaming rights.

For now, the machines are no longer operational. But the broader fight over who controls gambling expansion in California is only intensifying.