California's card rooms celebrated a major legal triumph on Tuesday when a court determined that the state's Bureau of Gambling Control (BGC) had overstepped its authority. This ruling came in response to sweeping regulatory changes that had taken effect on April 1. Judge Richard Darwin of the San Francisco Superior Court reinforced a preliminary injunction issued in May, which had halted the enforcement of the regulations while legal arguments were presented. At both hearings, Darwin expressed skepticism about the state's position and ultimately sided with the card rooms.
The regulations in question targeted blackjack games and player-dealers, imposing restrictions that could have had a drastic impact on revenue and tax income for card rooms. The BGC, one of California's two gaming oversight bodies alongside the Gambling Control Commission, was found to have acted beyond the scope of its authority. The commission operates independently, focusing on regulation and oversight, while the BGC works under the attorney general’s office with an emphasis on enforcement.
Judge Darwin stated, "I find that in issuing the subject regulations, the Bureau acted in excess of the authority granted to it by the legislature and the Gambling Control Act." A follow-up case management conference is scheduled for July 10 to discuss administrative aspects of the case. The attorney general’s office expressed disappointment with the ruling but indicated it is reviewing its next steps.
The regulations would have necessitated significant alterations to blackjack-style games—eliminating traditional features like the "bust" option and the target score of 21. They also included restrictions on player-dealers, mandating dealer rotations every 40 minutes and requiring that all players be offered the dealer position before each hand. These changes posed a grave threat to an industry that, as of 2019, had an annual economic impact of approximately $5 billion. An internal state analysis predicted that card rooms could face a 50% decline in blackjack revenue, leading several establishments to worry about potential closures, while various host cities considered raising sales taxes to mitigate expected losses.
Kyle Kirkland, president of the California Gaming Association and owner of Club One Casino in Fresno, expressed relief following the ruling, stating, "The reaction from the industry and our members is relief. We felt like we were on the right side of the law and the argument, and we heard that back in May when we got the preliminary injunction. Today, this just cements it."
The case involved three factions: the card rooms, Attorney General Rob Bonta representing the state, and California’s influential gaming tribes. Although the litigation solely addressed the conflict between card rooms and the attorney general, card rooms contended that the state's actions were influenced by the tribes, which have a considerably greater revenue and political clout, reportedly generating over $12 billion. The tribes, which hold exclusive rights to Class III gaming, have claimed that blackjack-style games infringe upon that exclusivity. However, past court rulings have supported the card rooms; for instance, a similar lawsuit facilitated by legislation (SB 549) was dismissed last year without an appeal.
As Bonta seeks re-election this November, he has taken a more active stance on gaming-related issues, frequently siding with tribal interests. His actions have included changes to card room regulations and removing gaming machines from racetracks.
The California court system is the largest in the United States, and if the state chooses to appeal, the timeline for resolution is uncertain. Statistics reveal that in 2024 and 2025, the state Supreme Court handled just 52 out of over 3,500 review petitions, issuing 45 written opinions.
A crucial aspect debated before Judge Darwin was not necessarily the regulations' content but rather the authority under which the BGC issued them. Card room attorney Jeremy Kreisberg argued that the Bureau was only empowered to regulate individual games and lacked the authority for broader game classifications. "The power to categorically prohibit games is not reasonably related to the Bureau’s individual game approval authority, and that, I think, is the statutory problem with what the Bureau seeks to do here," he asserted.
Deputy Attorney General Sharon O'Grady countered that existing penal codes supported the BGC's authority over the regulation process, claiming these regulations were about implementation rather than policy-making. Despite her arguments, the court ultimately favored the card rooms.
