Cardrooms Challenge California Blackjack Rule Changes

California’s cardroom industry has filed two lawsuits seeking to stop new gambling regulations that operators say could eliminate popular blackjack-style games and threaten the economic foundation of cardrooms across the state.

The legal challenges were submitted Monday in San Francisco Superior Court by the California Gaming Association, with support from the California Cardroom Alliance and Communities for California Cardrooms. The lawsuits target rules finalized by the California Department of Justice’s Bureau of Gambling Control that would significantly change how cardrooms operate certain table games.

Industry leaders argue the regulations could dismantle a system that has existed for decades and lead to widespread job losses while reducing revenue for cities that depend on gaming taxes.

“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,” Kyle Kirkland, president of the California Gaming Association, said in a statement cited by FOX40 News.

Lawsuits Target New Restrictions on Player-Dealer Games

The dispute centers on so-called player-dealer games offered in cardrooms. In these games, an independent company known as a third-party proposition player acts as the banker rather than the casino itself. Cardroom operators say this structure allows them to offer versions of games similar to blackjack while remaining compliant with California law.

The new regulations would alter how these arrangements work and restrict certain blackjack-style formats that have been available in cardrooms for years.

Among the changes, the rules would prohibit games that use a target value of 21 and prevent cardrooms from including the words “21” or “blackjack” in game names. Another regulation would require the player-dealer position at tables to rotate to other players at regular intervals instead of remaining with third-party banking companies.

Cardroom representatives say these changes undermine the operational structure that has allowed the industry to offer its most popular games.

The California Gaming Association said the rules reverse regulatory interpretations dating back to the early 2000s. According to the group, previous attorneys general repeatedly approved the games as legal, including during the tenures of former officials such as Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris.

Industry leaders also claim the rules were adopted despite significant opposition during the rulemaking process.

“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,” Kirkland said.

Economic Concerns for Workers and Cities

Cardroom operators warn the regulations could have widespread financial consequences if implemented.

According to the California Gaming Association, more than 10,000 jobs statewide could be lost, representing roughly half of the employment within California’s cardroom sector. Industry leaders argue that many facilities could close if they lose the ability to offer their most profitable games.

The California Department of Justice’s own economic analysis suggests the rules would reduce cardroom revenue by approximately $464 million annually. The department estimated that tribal casinos could gain about $232 million in additional revenue each year if gaming activity shifts away from cardrooms.

In a regulatory assessment, the department wrote that “The primary beneficiaries of the proposed regulations would be tribal casinos.”

Local governments are also concerned about the potential loss of tax revenue. Several California cities rely heavily on cardroom income to fund essential services.

For example, the City of Commerce receives more than $30 million annually from its local casino, accounting for over 40 percent of its general fund budget. City officials say those funds support public safety services, parks programs, and library operations.

Some municipalities have already begun planning for potential budget shortfalls. Commerce officials recently placed a quarter-cent sales tax measure on the June 2026 ballot as a contingency if gaming revenue declines sharply.

Other cities that host cardrooms, including Bell Gardens, Compton, Gardena, and Hawaiian Gardens, also depend on revenue generated by gaming facilities within their jurisdictions.

Long-Running Conflict With Tribal Casinos

The regulatory fight is part of a broader dispute between California cardrooms and tribal casinos over the types of games that can legally be offered in the state.

Under Proposition 1A, approved by voters in 2000, tribal casinos have exclusive rights to operate certain banked games such as blackjack and baccarat, where players wager directly against the house.

Cardrooms historically offered games such as poker in which players compete against each other. In 2007, however, a reinterpretation of state law allowed cardrooms to introduce versions of banked games using third-party proposition players as the banker.

Tribal governments have argued for years that this system effectively allows cardrooms to run games that resemble the casino offerings reserved for tribal properties.

The disagreement intensified after the California Legislature passed the Tribal Nations Access to Justice Act, which granted tribes the ability to bring lawsuits in state court challenging cardroom games they believe violate gambling law.

A separate legal battle over the issue is already underway, with appeals pending after a Sacramento judge dismissed a tribal lawsuit last year.

What Happens Next in the Legal Fight

The immediate issue before the court will likely be whether the regulations should be temporarily blocked while the lawsuits proceed.

Cardroom operators are expected to request an injunction preventing the rules from taking effect. Without court intervention, the regulations are scheduled to begin on April 1, with cardrooms required to submit compliance plans by the end of May and potentially change game operations by June.

“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,” Kirkland said. “We are asking the court to stop these unlawful regulations before they wipe out thousands of jobs and put many local economies into fiscal distress across California.”

A spokesperson for the California attorney general’s office said the department plans to review the lawsuits and respond through the court process.

Because the dispute touches on longstanding questions about California’s gambling framework and the balance between tribal and commercial gaming, legal experts expect the case could take years to resolve as it moves through the state court system.