California Judge Blocks Cardroom Table Game Ban as Legal Challenge Moves Forward

A San Francisco Superior Court judge issued a preliminary injunction on Thursday blocking the California Department of Justice from enforcing new cardroom regulations that would have effectively banned popular blackjack-style table games at the state’s licensed cardrooms. Judge Richard Darwin ruled that the Bureau of Gambling Control, led by Attorney General Rob Bonta, likely exceeded its statutory authority in adopting the regulations, and that forcing compliance could cause significant harm to cardrooms and the communities that depend on them economically.

The challenge was brought by the California Gaming Association, the trade group representing licensed cardrooms statewide. At issue is the practice of “third-party proposition player services” — a legal mechanism that allows licensed contractors to serve as the banker in blackjack-style games, since cardrooms themselves are prohibited under California law from acting as the bank. Bonta’s regulations targeted this structure, which the attorney general argued gave cardrooms an unfair competitive advantage over tribal casinos that hold exclusive rights to banked games.

The Stakes for California Cardrooms

California’s cardrooms are a substantial part of the state’s gaming economy. Unlike tribal casinos, which operate on federal trust land under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, cardrooms hold city and county licenses and serve local communities throughout the state — particularly in the Los Angeles basin, the Bay Area, and the San Joaquin Valley. The games targeted by Bonta’s regulations, including pai gow and Asian poker variants, are among the highest-earning games at many properties.

The tribal gaming industry has long argued that third-party banked games at cardrooms cross a legal line and effectively offer the same products that tribes have exclusive rights to under their state compacts. Attorney General Bonta’s regulations were widely interpreted as aligning with that tribal position. The California Gaming Association countered that the regulations were a policy choice dressed up as a legal interpretation, and that the bureau lacked the authority to effectively write new laws through rulemaking.

What the Ruling Does and Does Not Decide

Judge Darwin’s preliminary injunction is not a final ruling on the merits. The court found that the California Gaming Association demonstrated enough of a case to justify pausing the regulations while the full legal challenge proceeds. The attorney general’s office is expected to continue defending the regulations, and the case will move forward through additional briefings and hearings.

For gamblers in California, the ruling means cardrooms will continue to offer their current game formats without disruption for now. But the legal uncertainty will likely persist for months, and the underlying dispute between tribal gaming and commercial cardrooms is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. California has struggled for years to align its fractured gambling landscape, including repeated failures to pass online sports betting legislation at the ballot box. The cardroom dispute is just one more front in a multi-year battle over who controls gambling in the nation’s most populous state. California bettors looking for legal online options can review California sportsbooks for the current available landscape while these legal questions continue to play out.