Published in cooperation between PRInfinimedia and the Morgan Hill Times
The American Gaming Association reports that California’s tribal casinos generate roughly $35 billion for the state’s economy every year. That figure certainly dwarfs the typical revenue contributions from the state’s licensed cardrooms. However, these cardrooms still play an important role, adding to the revenue that drives growth and development. The revenue gap between tribal casinos and cardrooms is part of what fuels the tensions. Tribal leaders have challenged cardroom operators in ballot boxes and courthouses for years. The fights typically involve which game types are allowed for either party.
It’s no wonder many locals seek safe and secure online casinos that offer card games with tables, crash games and slots for the full experience. Online gambling isn’t legal within the state, but casinos licensed with offshore jurisdictions still offer secure gambling environments that locals can enjoy without fear of breaking the rules. These sites offer more than game variety in a single platform. They also welcome different payment options, allow fast payouts and offer massive bonuses that appeal to those who feel limited within the strict state.
Nonetheless, the dispute between cardroom operators and tribal leaders has existed for decades. Tribal casinos reserve the exclusive rights to operate slots and house-banked table games under statewide compacts, which are agreements supported by federal law. Meanwhile, cardrooms have long been an integral part of California’s gambling history, dating back to the Gold Rush, but these sites argue that their options are limited and unfair.
California cardrooms are allowed to offer variations of blackjack and poker, but they have to structure them differently so that they aren’t considered house-banked. In reality, this typically means the operators must use third-party proposition players to take on a similar role to the banker. Tribal leaders complain that the setup is too similar to house-banked table games, while operators argue that the variation follows the extensive cardroom regulations outlined by the California Bureau of Gambling Control with regard to house prohibitions.
The constant fighting has produced ballot initiatives, lawsuits and lobbying showdowns. Courts and lawmakers are often trapped in the middle of this endless feud. The California Department of Justice has even investigated whether cardroom operators are following the regulations or offering games that feel too similar to the house-banked options at tribal casinos. The state of California has issued multiple warnings and even tightened enforcement when investigations favored tribal leaders. However, these operators have mainly continued to supply the poker and blackjack variants.
Meanwhile, tribal casino leaders have also started mounting ballot measures to combat the expansion of online sports betting within the state, hoping to make sure the laws favor their interests as they did with the cardrooms. These ballots have also often attempted to put an end to cardroom operators, but have often failed at the polls.
Truthfully, cardrooms have contributed to community programs, law enforcement, libraries and other essential city services, albeit not to the same degree as the casinos. Tribal casinos certainly generate much more revenue for those willing to take a short drive. Still, the cardrooms contribute to some degree, which may help some cities. For example, cardrooms could help to close the $4 million deficit in Morgan Hill. Ultimately, both sectors love pointing out how much they contribute to the region to make the other look less important.
Another common layer in this ongoing feud is cultural and historical. Gaming is an economic engine for tribes, which has become a hard-earned right. Protecting the rights and compacts goes beyond competition as it connects to the state’s local culture and identity. Meanwhile, the fight for cardrooms is more about survival, even if they’ve operated for decades. Cardrooms consider themselves long-standing parts of the state’s history and social fabric, providing games in cities that don’t have tribal casinos so that locals don’t have to drive.
Still, many court cases have provided no results or clarity. Some judges side with tribes while others allow cardrooms to continue operating under the state’s laws. Both sides are left with ambiguity and frustration, while local officials have to balance competing interests. Allowing cardrooms to operate supports in-city jobs and revenue, but respecting tribal compacts honors agreements the state signed a long time ago.
For now, the stakes remain high because California is the second-largest US gambling market, only losing to Nevada. California is also known as the biggest tribal casino state in the United States, with resorts that attract millions of visitors each year. Cardrooms are often located in urban centers and appeal largely to local regulars more than tourists. Smaller cities like Morgan Hill certainly rely on these revenues to fill gaps that strain public budgets, but any changes to laws could suddenly upset the local funding and jobs.
Sports betting added to the feud when it entered the ballots in 2022, with tribal leaders and cardroom operators finding themselves facing a new contender. Tribal leaders pushed their own proposals, which would’ve limited sports betting to personal wagers placed at casinos. Cardrooms steadily opposed the proposal as it might have complicated their stance further. The law never passed as voters rejected both proposals, and sports betting took a hit, like online casinos did. However, punters can place bets in person at the tribal casinos.
The battles aren’t even limited to tribal leaders against cardrooms, as one proposed tribal project was rejected last year. While the state aims to respect the compacts, tribal casinos don’t just pop up overnight, either. Both tribal leaders and cardroom operators continue to fight each other and the state when new sites and projects become relevant. Both also wield some influence and wish to protect their models, meaning there is no end to the battle until officials can find a solution that satisfies both sides.
