AB 831 creates a laundry list of prohibited practices for contests and sweepstakes and imposes mandatory disclosures at key marketing touchpoints. It also targets digital mechanics that mimic casino-style gambling, and defines two types of consideration (direct and indirect) that can turn promotions into gambling-like activity.
The bill matters for any company that runs or platforms contests or promotional games: it prescribes what must be disclosed to entrants, restricts common marketing claims and “lucky” language, and limits certain paid tie‑breaker or simulated‑gaming designs. Those obligations will change how marketers design entry paths and how platform developers build interactive promotional features.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 831 lists specific deceptive acts and omissions that are illegal in the operation of contests and sweepstakes, requires clear disclosures at solicitation and when payment is requested, and prohibits game mechanics that simulate gambling or use dual‑currency systems tied to prizes. The bill also defines terms such as direct and indirect consideration and limits how winners and odds may be represented.
Who It Affects
Brands, agencies, promoters, and platform developers that run sweepstakes or promotional games; businesses that host promotions at physical locations; and any entity that uses online or app‑based interactive games tied to prizes. Regulators and consumer advocates will also receive new statutory hooks for enforcement and information requests.
Why It Matters
The measure tightens consumer protections around contests, closes several well‑known promotional loopholes, and brings web and mobile promotional mechanics squarely within regulatory scrutiny. For practitioners this means reworking entry flows, disclosure copy, product design, and internal compliance processes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 831 writes a detailed code of conduct for anyone operating a contest or sweepstakes in California. The bill enumerates a set of unfair acts and omissions operators may not do—these range from lying about the odds or the rules to failing to disclose fundamental information about puzzles, prizes, and the number of contestants.
The disclosure obligations must be made at three key points: the initial contest solicitation, any precontest promotional solicitations, and any time payment is required to become or remain a contestant.
Among the specific disclosure items the bill requires are the maximum number of puzzles or games that may be necessary to finish the contest; the maximum amount of money a participant might be asked to pay to win a given prize (including postage and handling); a clear statement that later puzzles or tie breakers will be significantly harder; the contest end date or dates when prizes will be awarded; and the tie‑breaker method if a tie remains. Operators must also disclose the exact nature and approximate value of prizes and must award the prizes as represented.
The bill forbids misrepresenting odds, rules, or the number or selection of participants, and bars language that implies entries are “lucky” or otherwise confer special chances.AB 831 imposes transparency around historical puzzle difficulty as well. Operators must disclose, at the required solicitation points, the total number of contestants they anticipate based on prior experience and the percentages of contestants who correctly solved each puzzle in the three most recently completed contests run by that operator (or, if fewer than three, the available prior contests).
Members of the public may also request the actual number and percentage of contestants who solved each puzzle in the most recently completed contest; the operator must provide that information promptly.The bill also addresses mechanics that simulate gambling. It makes unlawful any method—whether an internet site, app, or device—that simulates gambling (slot machines, table games, lotteries, sports wagering, etc.) and that either predetermines sweepstakes cash or cash‑equivalent prizes, connects players to cash or cash‑equivalents, or uses a dual‑currency payment system that allows play for consideration and eligibility for prizes.
There are narrow carve‑outs: limited, occasional promotional games incidental to bona fide sales and games that do not award cash or cash equivalents are not swept into the prohibition. Finally, AB 831 contains a set of technical rules: it requires express consent before using an individual’s name in promotional mailings to a third party, mandates labeling for simulated checks, and specifies how optional paid tie‑breaker phases must be made available for free (with controlled postage handling) and clearly disclosed.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Operators must disclose anticipated contestant counts and the percentages of entrants who correctly solved each puzzle in the operator’s three most recently completed contests at initial solicitation, in precontest promotions, and whenever payment is required.
On public request, an operator must promptly provide the actual number and percentage of contestants who correctly solved each puzzle in the most recently completed contest.
If a tie‑breaker or later phase is tied to payment, the operator must clearly disclose that payments are optional and offer a free entry option (except for reasonable postage and handling), with those fees capped at $1.50 plus actual postage.
The statute outlaws online or app‑based mechanics that simulate casino or lottery play when they predetermine or connect players to cash or cash equivalents or use a dual‑currency system—while carving out limited, occasional promotional games incidental to bona fide sales and games that award no cash.
Promotional devices that mimic checks or currency must be stamped “SPECIMEN—NONNEGOTIABLE,” the use of the word “lucky” to imply extra value is prohibited, and an operator may not imply a particular person has won unless a real contest occurred and a majority of participants failed to win a prize.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Required disclosures about contestant numbers and puzzle success rates
These paragraphs require disclosure of anticipated contestant counts (based on prior experience) and the percentages of contestants who correctly solved each puzzle in the three most recent contests at the initial solicitation, in precontest promotions, and whenever payment is required. They also create a public‑records style right: on request, the operator must promptly supply the actual numbers and percentages for the most recently completed contest. Practically, operators must keep historical records and be prepared to disclose them quickly.
Prohibitions on misrepresenting odds, rules, and prize details; required puzzle and prize disclosures
These clauses forbid misrepresenting odds or the contest rules and require clear, conspicuous disclosures attached to all puzzles and promotional games. Specifically required disclosures include the maximum number of puzzles that may be required, the maximum money a participant may pay to win (including postage/handling), that later puzzles/tie breakers will be significantly harder, contest end dates, tie‑breaker methods, and the full set of contest rules. Operators must also state the exact nature and approximate value of prizes and must award prizes as represented, which tightens both precontest advertising and fulfillment obligations.
Restrictions on claiming limited entries and winner representations
This subsection bars claims that participant numbers were artificially limited or that specific people have been selected unless true. It establishes a guardrail for winner testimonials and promotions: a person may not be represented as a prize winner unless the contest was real and a meaningful percentage—specified as at least a majority—of participants failed to win a prize. The use of promotional language implying special advantages (for example, calling a ticket “lucky”) is also prohibited.
Ban on simulated gambling and dual‑currency systems
This key paragraph targets internet sites, apps, or other devices intended to simulate gambling (slot machines, poker, roulette, lottery games, sports wagering, etc.) where those mechanics either predetermine sweepstakes cash prizes, connect players to cash or cash equivalents, or employ a dual‑currency payment system allowing play for consideration and prize eligibility. The provision is technical and broad in scope—covering business establishments, online platforms, and apps—while excluding limited, occasional promotions incidental to bona fide sales and games without cash prizes.
Name‑use consent, simulated items labeling, and paid tie‑breaker rules
Operators must obtain express written or oral consent before using an individual’s name for promotional mailings to a third person. Any simulated checks or currency must be clearly stamped “SPECIMEN—NONNEGOTIABLE.” For paid tie‑breaker phases, payments must be optional; operators must disclose the optional nature and offer a free entry route (except for reasonable postage and handling), with postage/fees capped (see the statute) and the free‑entry option presented in immediate conjunction and in the same manner as the paid option.
Definitions of direct consideration, indirect consideration, and sweepstakes
This definitions subsection clarifies key terms: direct consideration is a coin, token, or representation of value purchased or received as a bonus for play; indirect consideration is value provided for free through promotions or tied to purchase of a related product or service; and sweepstakes is broadly defined as distribution by lot, chance, predetermined selection, or random selection, subject to other applicable law. Those definitions are central to determining when a promotion crosses into the statute’s prohibitions.
Exceptions and interaction with other law
Paragraph (c) exempts advertising programs regulated under Section 17537.1 that comply with that section’s rules. Paragraph (d) clarifies that nothing in this section legalizes activities already unlawful under various Penal Code provisions. Paragraph (e) preserves lawful games run by a gambling enterprise licensed under the Gambling Control Act and operations of the California State Lottery. These cross‑references will matter in enforcement and in mapping this statute onto existing criminal and regulatory frameworks.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Contest participants and consumers — They gain mandated disclosures about prize value, contest duration, puzzle difficulty, and historical success rates, plus the right to request recent puzzle success data, improving transparency for entry decisions.
- Consumer protection agencies and attorneys general — The statute supplies concrete, enumerated prohibitions and disclosure obligations that make it easier to identify deceptive promotions and pursue enforcement or remedies.
- Honest promoters and compliant brands — Operators that already follow transparent practices benefit from clearer rules that level the playing field and limit competitors who relied on misleading tactics.
- Users of promotional mailings — Individuals gain protection through the express‑consent requirement before their names are used in third‑party promotional mailings, reducing unsolicited marketing tied to winners' names.
Who Bears the Cost
- Promoters, brands, and agencies running contests — They will incur compliance costs to assemble historical puzzle success data, rewrite disclosures, alter creative, and implement free‑entry mechanisms where paid tie‑breakers existed.
- App and platform developers — Platforms that host promotional games or social games will need to audit features for simulated‑gambling mechanics and potentially remove or redesign dual‑currency systems tied to prizes.
- Small businesses using promotional games — Local merchants running occasional sweepstakes may face implementation complexity and administrative burdens (recordkeeping, prompt disclosure responses), even where the promotion was previously simple.
- Enforcement bodies and courts — Regulators and courts may see increased workload responding to information requests, adjudicating ambiguous terms like “promptly” and “clearly and conspicuously,” and resolving disputes over definitions such as indirect consideration.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: the bill tightens consumer protections against deceptive contest mechanics and simulated gambling, but doing so risks sweeping too broadly over legitimate promotional tools and digital product features—forcing costly redesigns and legal uncertainty for marketers and developers while leaving open hard questions about how to measure compliance and enforce the new standards.
AB 831 advances consumer protections but raises practical and interpretive challenges. The statutory requirement to disclose “anticipated” contestant counts based on prior experience creates a forecasting obligation that could be manipulated or disputed; businesses will need to adopt consistent forecasting rules or face accusations of misleading projections.
The law’s repeated instruction that disclosures be “clear and conspicuous” and that data be sent “promptly” leaves room for litigation over standards—does a website banner suffice, and what timeframe qualifies as prompt for a records request?
The ban on simulated gambling and dual‑currency systems is conceptually broad and will require detailed technical analysis to apply to modern digital promotions. Free‑to‑play games, social casino titles, loot‑box mechanics, and in‑app token systems occupy a gray area: distinguishing prohibited designs from legitimate engagement features or incidental promotional tools will be fact‑specific and expensive to litigate or redesign.
The statute also sets unusual content rules—like the requirement that a majority of participants in a contest must have failed to win before an operator may imply an individual won—rules that may limit common testimonial and publicity practices and could chill celebratory marketing. Finally, the bill references other statutes and the Penal Code without specifying penalties or an enforcement regime here, so implementers must map how civil or criminal enforcement will interact with existing authorities.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.