Are Sweepstakes Casinos Legal in Washington

Sweepstakes casinos are not legal in Washington, and Washington is the only state where that conclusion came from a courtroom rather than a legislature or a regulator.

A federal appellate court held that virtual casino chips are a thing of value under Washington law. The operator behind Big Fish Casino paid $155 million to settle the resulting class actions.

Every major platform geo-blocks Washington as a direct result. Clovr lists no Washington-accessible sweepstakes casinos because none exist.

The Statutory Baseline

Washington’s approach is set out in the state’s own policy declaration, adopted with the 2006 amendments: the policy of the state is to prohibit all forms and means of gambling except where carefully and specifically authorised and regulated.

RCW 9.46.240 is the operative provision. It makes knowingly transmitting or receiving gambling information by internet, telephone, or similar means a class C felony, with the penalty set by RCW 9A.20.021.

A class C felony in Washington carries a maximum of five years and a $10,000 fine.

The felony classification came from House Bill 2416 in 2006, which amended the statute to cover internet transmission explicitly. It was among the strictest online gambling laws in the country when passed and remains so.

The statute carries its own exception, but it is narrow. It disapplies only to information or equipment relating to activities already authorised under Chapter 9.46 and conducted in compliance with that chapter and its rules. Compacted tribal sports wagering qualifies. Sweepstakes platforms do not.

The Ruling That Settled It

Cheryl Kater sued Churchill Downs in 2015 after losing more than $1,000 in virtual chips on Big Fish Casino. A federal district court dismissed the case, finding the chips had no value.

The Ninth Circuit reversed in 2018. In Kater v. Churchill Downs, the court held that Big Fish Casino’s virtual chips were a “thing of value” under Washington law, making the platform an illegal gambling game under the state’s statutory definition.

This was a federal appellate ruling applying Washington law. The Washington Supreme Court separately upheld the state’s online gambling ban against a constitutional challenge in Rousso v. State.

The Doctrine Underneath It

The Ninth Circuit leaned on the only Washington state court to have analysed the definition. In Bullseye Distributing LLC v. State Gambling Commission, the Washington Court of Appeals considered a vending machine emulating a video slot.

Players obtained play points by purchase, by redeeming a once-a-day promotional voucher, or by winning on the machine. The court held those points were things of value because they extended the privilege of playing the game without charge, even though they lacked pecuniary value on their own.

That is the reasoning that closes the door in Washington. The test is not whether a coin can be cashed out. It is whether the coin buys you more play.

What It Cost

Kater was consolidated with a second action, Thimmegowda v. Big Fish Games, filed in February 2019 against Churchill Downs, Big Fish, and both Aristocrat entities.

The parties settled for $155 million, with Churchill Downs paying $124 million and Aristocrat Leisure paying $31 million. The Western District of Washington approved it in February 2021.

The class covered anyone in the United States who had played Big Fish Casino, Jackpot Magic Slots, or Epic Diamond Slots on or before preliminary approval in August 2020. More than 50,000 claims had been filed by December 2020.

Date	Event
April 2015	Kater files against Churchill Downs in W.D. Washington
March 2018	Ninth Circuit holds virtual chips are a thing of value
February 2019	Thimmegowda filed against Churchill Downs, Big Fish, and Aristocrat
August 2020	Preliminary approval; settlement class fixed
February 2021	$155 million settlement approved

Why the Free Entry Defence Fails Here

In most states, sweepstakes casinos avoid gambling classification by offering a free entry route. Because players do not have to make a purchase, the consideration element is removed.

Washington takes a different view. Under the Bullseye reasoning, virtual coins that extend gameplay can be treated as a thing of value, whether players bought, won, or received them for free.

That means an alternative method of entry does not resolve the issue in Washington. The free coins themselves may create the legal problem.

Players Are Plaintiffs Here, Not Defendants

This is the part most coverage of Washington gets backwards.

RCW 9.46.240 reaches players in theory, since receiving gambling information is covered alongside transmitting it. No public record shows an individual Washington player prosecuted under it.

The statutes that have actually moved money run the other way. Kater brought three claims: recovery under RCW 4.24.070, the Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act, alongside violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act at RCW 19.86.010 and unjust enrichment.

The RMLGA lets a player who lost money at unlawful gambling recover it from the operator. That combination produced $155 million.

In Washington, the realistic legal event involving a player and a sweepstakes platform is the player suing the platform.

What Washington Means by Sweepstakes

Washington’s statutory use of the word is unusually narrow, and the two authorised categories show how narrow.

Golfing sweepstakes are auction-based contests where participants bid on players or teams, with proceeds going to the winning bidder. Participation is limited to members of the sponsoring organisation and their bona fide guests.

Bowling sweepstakes let a bowling establishment sell tickets at a posted price, draw a winner by luck, and give that person a chance to bowl a strike for a posted prize.

Neither resembles an online casino lobby. The Washington State Gambling Commission has said the sweepstakes casino model combines elements of two separately authorised activity types, raffles and promotional contests of chance, into a third type the Gambling Act does not authorise.

Chapter 9.46 RCW operates on explicit authorisation. Raffles require a licence and a qualifying nonprofit beneficiary, and no online dual-currency platform meets that definition or any other authorised category.

Access and VPNs

Every major sweepstakes operator geo-blocks Washington. That includes the B-Two and A1 Development brand families alongside the larger independent platforms. This is a permanent compliance position rather than a temporary policy.

A VPN does not change the legal analysis. RCW 9.46.240 addresses the act of transmitting or receiving gambling information, not how an IP address presents. VPN use also breaches the terms of service at every major platform and voids any balance accumulated during that session.

What Is Legal in Washington

Washington has one of the largest tribal gaming markets in the country, with more than 30 casinos operating under state-tribe compacts authorised by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Tribal sportsbook apps have been legal since 2021 but are geofenced to on-premises use. Washington permits no statewide mobile sports wagering, so a bet must be placed while physically on tribal land.

The Washington State Lottery offers draw games and scratch tickets statewide. Pari-mutuel horse race wagering is the one other authorised online option.

The WSGC licenses house-banked card rooms across the state and runs a statewide self-exclusion programme covering them. Tribal casinos operate separate self-exclusion programmes, so exclusion from one system does not carry to the other.

Crypto Casinos as an Alternative

Crypto casinos take deposits and pay out in Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, and stablecoins, with no Gold Coin layer and no playthrough conversion between currencies.

The trade-off is different rather than better. Crypto casinos hold offshore licences rather than US state licences. Payouts are faster and limits are higher than anything in the sweepstakes market.

Sloto Cash

Sloto Cash has served US players since 2007 and is the longest-established option here. It carries a 4.2 Trustpilot rating and runs a welcome package worth up to $7,777 with 300 free spins, unlocking from a $25 deposit.

The library covers three-reel classics, five-reel video slots, table games, and progressive jackpots. Sloto Magazine gives the brand a content layer most crypto casinos do not bother with.

Texas players who want a familiar operator with a long US track record should start here.

96.com

96.com is a crypto casino and sportsbook combined, which is the main reason to pick it over a casino-only platform. It launched in 2023 and operates under Anjouan licence ALSI-202410013-FI1, held by Dynasty Chain Success Limited.

The catalogue pairs mainstream studios with a large 96 Originals range of instant games built in-house. Banking runs on USDT across TRC20 and ERC20 alongside several fiat routes.

The promotional calendar is heavier than most competitors, with recurring offers rather than a single front-loaded welcome.

Mirax Casino

Mirax is the largest library of the three at 7,000+ titles from more than 50 providers, including NetEnt, Microgaming, Evolution Gaming, and QuickSpin. It launched in 2022 under Hollycorn N.V. with a Curaçao licence.

The welcome package runs across four deposits, reaching up to 5 BTC with 150 free spins, on a 25x playthrough. Crypto withdrawals process instantly and the published win rate sits at 97.06%.

Slots dominate at over 6,000 titles, with live casino, blackjack, roulette, and instant wins alongside them.

Problem Gambling Support

The Evergreen Council on Problem Gambling provides statewide treatment referrals for Washington residents. The WSGC administers a separate helpline and the card-room self-exclusion programme.

Will This Change

Unlikely in the near term. Washington has rejected online gambling proposals consistently since the 2006 amendments, and tribal gaming interests hold significant political influence against competing online formats.

No pending legislation proposes a carve-out in RCW 9.46.240. More importantly, Washington’s position rests on judicial interpretation of what a thing of value is, so opening the market would require amending that definition rather than adding an exception.