California

Last verified September 27, 2026

By the Legal Sportsbooks US editorial team

California

Not legal

Legal since

Not legal

Minimum age

Not applicable (no legal sports betting)

Regulator

None

Licensed apps

None

State law

Cal. Penal Code 337a (bookmaking and pool selling)

Is sports betting legal in California?

No. California has no licensed sportsbooks, retail or online, and Penal Code 337a(a)(6) makes it a crime to bet on a sporting event. Tribal casinos can't take sports bets either, because Prop 26, which would have let them, failed in 2022 along with the online measure, Prop 27. The tribes' next target is the November 2028 ballot.

Why it isn't legal yet

Since Prop 1A passed in 2000, only tribes may run Las Vegas-style games, and both 2022 sports betting measures were constitutional amendments that needed a statewide vote. On November 8, 2022, Prop 26 (in-person betting at tribal casinos and the four private racetracks) lost 3,514,597 to 7,129,127, or 33.0% to 67.0%. Prop 27 (online betting run by tribes or licensed gambling companies) lost 1,906,342 to 8,849,206, or 17.7% to 82.3%.

For 2024, Eagle1, led by Kasey Thompson and Reeve Collins, filed two initiatives and got them cleared for signature gathering. The California Nations Indian Gaming Association (CNIGA) opposed them, and Thompson pulled both in January 2024. CNIGA's request for information to online sportsbook vendors, dated June 3, 2026, with responses due July 1, lays out a tribally owned model aimed at the November 2028 ballot. CNIGA represents more than 50 of the state's 109 federally recognized tribes.

The history of sports betting law in California

Constitution, cardrooms and Prop 1A

A 1984 initiative added Article IV, Section 19(e) to the state constitution, which bars casinos of the type operating in Nevada and New Jersey. State law also bans banked and percentage card games, while licensed cardrooms may run games like poker where players compete against each other. In November 1998 voters passed Prop 5, a statute requiring the state to sign a set compact with tribes. The California Supreme Court struck it down on August 23, 1999, holding that a statute can't authorize what Section 19(e) forbids. It left standing one clause, the state's consent to be sued by tribes in Government Code 98005.

The Davis administration signed compacts with tribes in 1999 and proposed a constitutional amendment so the state could carry them out. Voters approved it as Prop 1A in March 2000, allowing slot machines, lottery games and banked card games on tribal land under compacts. The compacts gave tribes the exclusive right to class III gaming in the state, and none of them covered sports betting.

The blackjack dispute

In late 2007 Bob Lytle, then director of the state Division of Gambling Control, allowed cardrooms to offer blackjack-style games if the player-dealer position rotated around the table. Licensed third-party proposition player services (TPPPs) came to fill that seat hand after hand, and tribes have argued since that the arrangement is house-banked gaming reserved to them by Prop 1A. Earlier tribal suits were dismissed for lack of standing. SB 549 (Chapter 860, Statutes of 2024), signed in September 2024, gave compacted tribes a one-time right to sue cardrooms in Sacramento Superior Court.

The Department of Justice went after the same games through rulemaking. On February 6, 2026, the Office of Administrative Law approved Bureau of Gambling Control rules on player-dealer rotation and blackjack-style games, effective April 1, 2026. The state's own impact assessment projected that cardrooms would lose about $464 million a year and tribal casinos would gain about $232 million. Both the SB 549 suit and the regulations ended up in court (see below).

After Murphy

The Supreme Court's May 14, 2018 ruling in Murphy v. NCAA left the decision to states. California's only statewide votes on it since were the 2022 ballot measures. Attorney General Rob Bonta's Opinion No. 23-1001 (July 3, 2025) concluded that paid daily fantasy contests, pick'em and draft-style alike, are illegal sports wagering under Section 337a. AB 831 (Chapter 623, Statutes of 2025), signed October 11, 2025 and in effect since January 1, 2026, bans online sweepstakes casinos and makes it a misdemeanor for payment processors, geolocation providers and affiliates to knowingly support them. Department of Justice officers removed 26 Racing on Demand terminals from Santa Anita Park on January 17, 2026, and the track sued Bonta and the department in Los Angeles Superior Court on January 20. Gov. Gavin Newsom's executive order of March 27, 2026 bars his appointees from using nonpublic information to trade on prediction markets.

Sports betting court cases in California

Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees v. Davis (1999)

California Supreme Court, No. S074850, decided August 23, 1999, 21 Cal. 4th 585. The court held Prop 5 invalid under Article IV, Section 19(e), saving only the Government Code 98005 waiver of sovereign immunity. It's the reason tribes can sue the state in federal court over compact talks.

Artichoke Joe's v. Norton (2003)

Ninth Circuit, 353 F.3d 712 (2003), appeal from E.D. Cal. No. CV-01-00248. Cardrooms and charities argued that Prop 1A and the 62 tribal-state compacts violated IGRA and equal protection. The court held both consistent with IGRA and equal protection and affirmed summary judgment for the state and federal defendants.

Chicken Ranch Rancheria v. California (2022)

Ninth Circuit No. 21-15751, decided July 28, 2022, 42 F.4th 1024. Five tribes, including Chicken Ranch and Blue Lake, sued when talks on successor compacts stalled. The court held the state hadn't negotiated in good faith because it demanded terms on family law, environmental rules and tort law unrelated to gaming. When California declined the mediator's pick, the Interior Department issued secretarial procedures for Blue Lake and Chicken Ranch on January 31, 2024, which now govern their gaming. A 2023 opinion in the same case (April 25, 2023) denied the tribes attorneys' fees.

Tribes v. cardrooms under SB 549 (2025 to present)

Sacramento County Superior Court, Judge Lauri Damrell. Tribes including the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians sued dozens of cardrooms and TPPPs in January 2025. On October 10, 2025, the judge adopted her tentative ruling, sustained the cardrooms' demurrer without leave to amend, and held SB 549 preempted by IGRA. The Third District Court of Appeal received the tribes' notices of appeal on December 4, 2025. We found no appellate decision as of September 27, 2026.

California Gaming Association v. Bonta (2026)

San Francisco Superior Court, Nos. CPF-26-519606 and CPF-26-519609. On July 8, 2026 the court issued a writ barring enforcement of the blackjack and player-dealer rules, and on July 10 it entered final judgments holding that the Bureau of Gambling Control lacked statutory authority to adopt them. The Bureau has appealed, and its compliance timeline is suspended.

Underdog Sports v. Bonta and the DFS class actions (2025)

Underdog filed in Sacramento Superior Court (No. 25WM000120) on June 30, 2025 to stop the DFS opinion from issuing. Judge Jennifer Rockwell denied its ex parte application, writing that an attorney general's opinion "does not effect any change in the law." Separately, by July 3, 2025 consumers had filed four class actions in federal court in California against FanDuel, DraftKings, PrizePicks and Underdog under the Penal Code and the state's Unfair Competition Law, and Koning v. Underdog Sports (N.D. Cal. No. 3:25-cv-07211) followed on August 26, 2025. We couldn't confirm the current status of those suits.

Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi (2025 to present)

N.D. Cal. No. 3:25-cv-06162 (Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley); Ninth Circuit No. 25-7504. Blue Lake Rancheria, Chicken Ranch Rancheria and Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians sued Kalshi and Robinhood on July 22, 2025 under IGRA, RICO and the Lanham Act. Judge Corley denied a preliminary injunction on November 10, 2025. She reasoned that the Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over Kalshi's contracts. She stayed the case on May 22, 2026 until the Ninth Circuit decided two appeals.

On September 16, 2026, a panel (Chief Judge Murguia and Judges McKeown and Paez) reversed in part. It held the tribes are likely to show that Kalshi's sports event contracts are class III gaming, that they're located on Indian lands when a user enters them from tribal territory, and that they violate the tribes' secretarial procedures and ordinances. The panel also held that UIGEA doesn't displace IGRA and that the CEA's exclusive jurisdiction doesn't reach these contracts. It affirmed the rejection of the Lanham Act claim over Kalshi's "Sports Betting [Is] Legal in all 50 States" ad and remanded for the remaining injunction factors. Picayune was dismissed from the appeal by stipulation. At a September 24 status hearing, Kalshi's counsel told Judge Corley the company had geofenced the three tribes' lands.

KalshiEX v. Assad and other circuits

Ninth Circuit rulings bind federal courts in California. In KalshiEX v. Assad (No. 25-7516), decided August 28, 2026, the court upheld the dissolution of Kalshi's injunction against Nevada regulators. It found that Kalshi's sports event contracts likely aren't swaps within the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction. Kalshi petitioned for rehearing en banc on September 9, and we found no ruling on the petition as of September 27. The Third Circuit ruled for Kalshi in KalshiEX v. Flaherty (No. 25-1922, April 6, 2026). New Jersey's petition, No. 26-299, was docketed at the Supreme Court on September 8, and Kalshi's response is due November 9, 2026.

Prediction markets and daily fantasy

We found no cease-and-desist letter or lawsuit by California officials against Kalshi, Polymarket, Crypto.com, Robinhood, Underdog or Novig as of September 27, 2026. Bonta's office did join Massachusetts, 25 other states and D.C. in a brief supporting the tribes in Blue Lake. Three 2026 Assembly bills on prediction markets (AB 1840 on insider trading by officials, AB 2446 on investigating large payouts and AB 2617 on minors) didn't pass. Private suits continue, including Mazza v. Robinhood (N.D. Cal. No. 3:26-cv-05610, filed June 10, 2026), which alleges event contracts are illegal gambling under California law. Outside the three rancherias Kalshi has geofenced, sports event contracts remain available across the state, and Novig, a CFTC-designated contract market (Ludlow Exchange, LLC, designated June 16, 2026), accepts California users who are 21 or older and pass identity checks (its eligibility page excludes only Nevada, Arizona and Michigan).

Paid daily fantasy still runs in California despite Opinion No. 23-1001. The opinion is advisory, and the Governor's office said it disagreed with the outcome. Underdog and PrizePicks moved California pick'em to peer-to-peer formats, while DraftKings, FanDuel and Sleeper kept their contests. Bonta told KCRA in July 2025 that enforcement was the next step, but we found no enforcement action as of September 2026.

Help with a gambling problem

The California Problem Gambling Helpline, run through the CDPH Office of Problem Gambling, is free, confidential and open 24/7: call 1-800-GAMBLER (1-800-426-2537), text SUPPORT to 53342, or chat at 800gambler.chat.

Sources

Common questions

How we track and verify state laws

What does Legal Sportsbooks US track?

Every state's legal status, the date betting became legal, the minimum age, the regulator and the licensed apps, plus the legal history and court cases behind them, for all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Our page on how we track and verify state laws explains the details.

What do the statuses mean?

Online and retail means licensed mobile apps and in-person sportsbooks both operate. Online only means betting happens through licensed apps, with no retail sportsbooks. Retail only means you can bet in person at licensed venues, but there's no statewide app. Not legal means no licensed sportsbooks operate. Legislation pending means a bill or ballot measure is moving, but betting hasn't launched. Not yet verified means we haven't confirmed the state's current status.

Can I bet on sports where I live?

The rules follow where you are when you place the bet. Licensed apps use geolocation to confirm you're inside a state where they can operate, and some states limit betting to certain premises. Find your state in the state index, or read our guide to location rules.

How old do you have to be to bet on sports?

It's 21 in 33 of the 40 jurisdictions with legal sports betting and 18 in five: Washington, D.C., Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Wyoming. In North Dakota and Washington, the tribal casino sets the age.

How current is the tracker?

State laws and licenses change, so every state entry records the date it was last verified. If a status looks out of date, the state regulator's website has the official answer.

Is this legal advice?

No. We summarize public information about state sports betting laws. Confirm the rules with your state regulator before you bet, and don't wager more than you can afford to lose.