What this register records, and what it refuses to guess
A closed state is not one kind of event. A legislature can pass a bill that names the dual-currency mechanism. A regulator can write to operators under a law it already has. An operator can decide that the compliance cost of a state is higher than the revenue and remove the state from its list. All three produce the same result at the cashier, and they have different durability, different reversal paths and different paper trails.
The same wave in chronological order, with signing and effective dates kept apart, is on 2026 in review.
This page keeps the paper trail separate from the outcome. Each record carries a mechanism, an instrument where one exists, the year it passed and the effective date as our state pages hold it. Where the record has no bill number or no exact day, the field says so. A date we do not have is not a date we estimate, because a wrong effective date is worse than an absent one on a page a reader might use to time a redemption.
The counts come in two layers. The first is the legal layer: ten statutes and two enforcement actions. The second is the market layer: three states where no operator we document serves the product and no sweepstakes statute is recorded. Fifteen is the sum, and the sum is what the table shows. A reader who wants to know how a state closed should read the mechanism column before the state name.
The ten statutory bans, one by one
The statutes share a drafting choice: they either name the dual-currency structure or redefine internet gambling broadly enough to cover any form of currency, which reaches every operator at once. What differs is the politics. A licensed industry can ask for the closure, a state with no casino industry can pass it as consumer protection, and a tribal state can pass it to protect a compact. Each route leaves a different kind of record and a different chance of repeal.
Illinois and Michigan are the test cases for anyone who thinks a statute is the only way a market closes. They also explain why this page dates the closures to a month or a year rather than a day: a letter is not a public instrument with a number, so the only date a reader can rely on is the one on the state list that changed afterwards. That is a weaker record than a bill number and a stronger one than an assumption.
Three states with no statute and no market
These are the closures that legislation trackers miss. No bill names the product, and in these states the gambling code never needed one, because a broad prohibition, a licensed monopoly or a regulator's posture already covered it. The market closed because the operators left first.
The distinction matters for a reader because the reversal path is different. A statutory closure needs a repeal, which is slow and public. An operator exit needs a compliance team to change its risk assessment, which can happen in a quarter and without a press release. A state can therefore reopen before any legislator notices, and close again the same way.
Arizona
Arizona has tribal casinos and licensed sports betting but no online casino. There is no sweepstakes statute in our record, and the market is genuinely split: three of the twenty documented lists name Arizona. A reader's answer here depends on the operator, which is exactly what the restricted tier is meant to signal. The state page records the regulator, the check date and the brand table.
Delaware
Delaware runs a single lottery-supervised online casino platform and has no sweepstakes statute in our record. Every documented list excludes the state, which makes it the restricted tier's hardest case: the label records the legal position, while the lists record a market that is not there. Read the row, not the badge. The state page records the regulator, the check date and the brand table.
Kentucky
Kentucky's attorney general sued VGW in Franklin Circuit Court on 17 June 2026, arguing that the dual-currency product violates state gambling law and the Consumer Protection Act, and seeking an injunction, penalties and restitution. VGW said it would defend the case. Seven of the twenty documented lists exclude the state, so the market is mixed and provisional: availability can move with a filing, a settlement or an appeal rather than with a calendar. The state page records the regulator, the check date and the brand table.
Maryland
Maryland licenses casinos and sports betting and has no sweepstakes statute in our record, but its Lottery and Gaming Control Agency sent cease-and-desist letters in March 2025, including an order directing VGW to leave the state. Eight of the twenty documented lists exclude Maryland. The restriction is an enforcement posture rather than a rule, which is a weaker instrument and an easier one to reverse. The state page records the regulator, the check date and the brand table.
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania has the largest licensed online casino market by revenue and no sweepstakes statute in our record. Two of the twenty documented lists exclude it, so the state is a genuine split: the licensed market creates the risk, and each brand prices that risk differently. The state page records the regulator, the check date and the brand table.
Rhode Island
Rhode Island runs a single-operator online casino through its lottery and has no sweepstakes statute in our record. Three of the twenty documented lists exclude the state. The market is small enough that a brand's decision is a rounding error for the operator and a real constraint for the reader. The state page records the regulator, the check date and the brand table.
Vermont
Vermont has no casinos and a small licensed sportsbook market. Only one of the twenty documented lists excludes it, which makes it the most open of the restricted states in our sample; the label reflects a thin market rather than a legal barrier. The state page records the regulator, the check date and the brand table.
West Virginia
West Virginia was an early legaliser of online casino and sports betting, and it has no sweepstakes statute in our record. After months of subpoenas from the Attorney General, more than 20 platforms exited by July 2025, and every documented list now excludes the state. It sits in the same practical position as Delaware: a restricted badge over a market the lists describe as closed. The state page records the regulator, the check date and the brand table.
Florida is open, and Stake still excludes it
Florida is the reverse case, and it is a useful control. The state has no sweepstakes ban in our model, but the Seminole compact gives the licensed operator an exclusivity argument that a brand has to weigh, and Stake.us excludes Florida while McLuck accepts it. The tier stays open because the state has not closed the product; the brand list stays narrower because one operator priced the compact differently.
That combination is the normal state of this market rather than an exception. A state can be open in law and narrower in practice, and a brand can be conservative in one state and permissive in another for reasons that have nothing to do with the statute. The tracker records closures, and the coverage matrix records the lists; a reader who wants the whole position needs both pages.
What a closure does to a balance
The question readers ask first is not whether a bill passed but what happens to money already on the platform. The honest answer is that it depends on three documents: the terms version in force when the request was made, the state clause that governs eligibility, and the closure clause that governs what happens to a balance when an account is closed. None of the three is written for the reader's convenience, and all three are readable before the closure.
The sequence matters more than the wording. A request submitted before the effective date is more likely to be paid than one submitted after, because the operator can argue that the account should not have been available in the state at all. A request that is pending when the list changes is the hardest case: the money is approved in principle and the state clause may still defeat it.
Three things are worth doing in a state with a bill moving. Request a redemption before the effective date rather than after. Keep the confirmation, the reference number and a copy of the terms version you agreed to. Ask support, in writing, whether a request submitted before the date will be paid, and keep the answer. The answer is the only document in the file that the brand produced rather than the reader.
A wind-down window is the detail that decides whether this is possible. Where a statute gives operators a period after the effective date to process existing balances, a reader has time. Where it does not, the effective date is the deadline. Oklahoma's override in May left operators until 1 November; not every ban has that much room, and the difference is worth checking before a balance is built rather than after.
There is no regulator to escalate to in most of these states, which is the structural problem the whole page describes. A licensed casino has a board that will hear a complaint. A promotional brand in a state that has just banned the product has a terms page and a support queue. Documentation is not a guarantee; it is the only lever that exists.
How to check a state in four minutes
First, read the state row on this page for the mechanism. A statute or an enforcement action means the legal position is closed, whatever a brand says. An operator exit means the market is closed in the sample but the legal position may be silent.
Second, open the state page and read the check date and the regulator. A dated page is a claim about a moment, not a permanent fact, and the date is the part that tells you how much weight to give it.
Third, search the operator's terms for your state. If the state appears in an exclusion list, stop. If it does not appear, do not conclude that it is accepted: the list may be stale, partial or limited to sign-up. Ask support in writing and keep the reply.
Fourth, open the cashier and check whether sweeps coins are purchasable and redeemable from your location. That is the only test that combines the statute, the list and the operator's own geolocation in one place. A lobby that loads is not the same as a cashier that works.
The timeline, briefly
2025: Montana and Connecticut passed statutes effective 1 October, New Jersey signed in August, California in October with a 1 January 2026 start, and New York in December; Illinois and Michigan moved through enforcement; Kentucky moved through litigation and remains restricted. 2026: Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Tennessee and Oklahoma legislated, with effective dates spread from July to November. Idaho, Nevada and Washington were already closed in the market without a sweepstakes statute.
The direction has been one-way for two years, and the mechanism has become cheaper each time: a bill that cites another state's bill is easier to pass than a study, and a regulator that cites another regulator's letters is easier to defend. The counterweight is commercial rather than legal. Every closure removes a market, and the brands that remain have an interest in the states that are left.
What would change this page
A repeal, a licensing framework or a court decision. Repeals are rare because bans pass with support from licensed industries and consumer-protection coalitions, and licensing is slower because it has to resolve every stakeholder's claim. A court decision is the wildcard: a ruling in Kentucky would give every other state a template in one direction or the other.
We update the register when a state page changes, not when a headline appears. If a statute passes and the page still says open, the page is wrong and the correction log is the place it gets fixed. If a brand list changes and the statute does not, the coverage matrix moves first and this page keeps its mechanism.