California Cardrooms Sue to Block AG Bonta’s Blackjack Ban and TPPPs Rules

California’s cardrooms have filed two lawsuits challenging new regulations approved by Attorney General Rob Bonta that eliminate blackjack-style games and change rules governing third-party proposition player services (TPPPs).

Earlier this week, the California Gaming Association (CGA), with support from the California Cardroom Alliance and Communities for California Cardrooms, filed the suits in San Francisco Superior Court.

The suits seek to block the regulations approved by the California Department of Justice’s Bureau of Gambling Control last month and ask the court to invalidate the rules.

Cardrooms Seek to Block Rules Before April Implementation

The new rules go into effect April 1, with cardrooms required to submit compliance plans by May 31.

The regulations ban traditional blackjack-style games that use a target score of 21. They also impose stricter requirements on the rotation of the player-dealer position in cardrooms.

The industry argues that the changes will fundamentally alter their business model. In a statement, CGA President Kyle Kirkland said:

“Attorney General Bonta’s regulations threaten to eliminate more than half of California’s cardroom jobs and wipe out a critical source of revenue for dozens of cities. These games have operated legally for decades under multiple Attorneys General, yet one public official is now moving to shut them down without identifying a single public safety concern or addressing the 1,764 public comments about these regulations.”

The press release references the state’s Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment, which could eliminate 50% of employment and revenue.

The assessment estimates that cardrooms would lose roughly $464 million in annual revenue. It forecasts an average of 364 fewer full-time equivalent jobs per year, or more than 3,600 positions over the next decade.

Notably, the analysis forecasts that tribal casinos would gain about $232 million in annual revenue.

According to the press release, the lawsuit explains that the regulations are “an unprecedented power grab by the Attorney General that contradicts state law in multiple ways.”

Cities Warn of Economic Fallout

The lawsuits also emphasize the economic impact of the changes on municipalities across the state.

Many local governments rely heavily on cardroom tax revenue, which in some municipalities accounts for a majority of general fund revenue.

One of the most exposed municipalities is Hawaiian Gardens. Councilmember Victor Farfan previously told Gambling Insider that the city’s Gardens Casino generates roughly $13m of the city’s approximately $20 million general fund. Farfan said that the ban is “not an abstract policy debate; it’s a matter of economic survival” for the city.

Municipalities like Bell Gardens and the City of Commerce also rely heavily on cardroom tax revenue, which provides about 50% and 40% of their general funds, respectively.

The City of Commerce is already preparing to mitigate potential revenue losses. According to the press release, the city plans to place a quarter-cent sales tax measure on the June 2026 ballot to offset expected funding gaps if the regulations take effect.

Smaller municipalities are not the only ones heavily affected. Major cities like Fresno and San Jose also face significant revenue losses. San Jose officials have warned that new restrictions could significantly reduce revenue from the city’s two cardrooms, which currently generate about $30 million annually for the city budget.

Decades-Long Tribal-Cardroom Dispute

The controversy stems from a decades-long conflict between California’s tribal casinos and commercial cardrooms.

In 2000, California granted tribes exclusive rights to casino games through Proposition 1A. At the same time, the state allowed cardrooms to continue operating by permitting the use of TPPPs.

Under this framework, tribal casinos have exclusivity over house-banked games, while cardrooms can only offer peer-to-peer games in which players compete against each other rather than the house.

To facilitate gameplay, cardrooms use TPPPs to temporarily serve as the bank. That allows games that resemble blackjack while technically maintaining the player-banked structure.

Tribal gaming groups have argued that the system violates their exclusivity rights. Meanwhile, cardrooms have maintained that the games have been permitted for decades under state regulatory guidance.

Last year, cardrooms scored two courtroom victories. Operators viewed the decisions as affirming their existing business practices, but the new regulations indicate otherwise.

Industry Says Regulations Ignore Community Concerns

Cardroom representatives say the new rules ignore warnings from local governments and workers who rely on the industry.

Kirkland said:

“Our industry repeatedly raised legal and economic concerns throughout the rulemaking process, but the Attorney General refused to engage with the communities and working families who will be harmed.”

The lawsuits seek an injunction to stop the regulations before they take effect in April.

If courts decline to intervene, cardrooms would need to substantially alter or eliminate blackjack-style games and adjust player-dealer mechanics within months.