California Judge Blocks Cardroom Game Ban, Finds Attorney General Likely Overstepped Authority

A San Francisco Superior Court judge issued a preliminary injunction on Thursday, blocking enforcement of California’s new cardroom regulations and pausing what would have effectively been a statewide ban on some of the most popular table games offered at California cardrooms. Judge Richard Darwin ruled that the California Department of Justice’s Bureau of Gambling Control likely exceeded its authority when it adopted the regulations and found that forcing cardrooms to comply could cause significant and irreversible financial harm to the businesses and their surrounding communities.

The case was brought by the California Gaming Association, which represents the state’s licensed cardrooms. The regulations, championed by Attorney General Rob Bonta, targeted “third-party proposition player services” — a banking mechanism that allows outside contractors to fund the house side of blackjack-style games. California cardrooms cannot legally act as the bank in these games under state law, so they rely on licensed third parties to fulfill that role. Bonta’s regulations would have banned the practice, effectively eliminating the games.

Why This Matters for California Gambling

California cardrooms are a distinct segment of the gambling industry. Unlike tribal casinos, which operate on sovereign land under federal compacts and offer a full range of games, cardrooms operate under state licenses in cities and counties across California. Many are in densely populated urban areas — Los Angeles, San Jose, Commerce — and serve local communities that do not have convenient access to tribal facilities. The games at issue, including pai gow poker and Asian poker variants played with a third-party banker, are among the highest-revenue offerings at many of these properties.

The legal dispute has a long history rooted in the uneasy relationship between California’s tribal gaming industry and the cardrooms. Tribes have argued that third-party banked games give cardrooms an unfair competitive advantage and blur the line between the card games cardrooms are licensed for and the banked games that tribes have exclusive rights to offer. Bonta’s regulations were widely seen as favorable to tribal interests. The court’s preliminary injunction does not resolve that underlying legal question — it only preserves the status quo while the case moves through the courts.

What Comes Next

Judge Darwin’s ruling is a preliminary injunction, not a final decision. The California Gaming Association still needs to win on the merits to permanently block the regulations. The case will now proceed to further hearings, and the attorney general’s office is expected to appeal or contest the ruling at the next stage. Cardrooms will continue operating their current game formats for now, but the legal uncertainty will persist until a final decision is reached.

California remains one of the most closely watched gambling markets in the country. Repeated ballot measure attempts to legalize online sports betting have failed at the statewide level, leaving residents without access to legal mobile wagering. The cardroom dispute highlights just how fractured the California gambling landscape remains, with tribal casinos, commercial cardrooms, horse racing tracks, and online advocates all competing for legal ground. For California bettors wondering what options exist in the meantime, the current landscape is covered at online sportsbooks in California.