Are Sweepstakes Casinos Legal in Washington?

The section is titled "Gambling information, transmitting or receiving." Whoever knowingly transmits or receives gambling information by telephone, telegraph, radio, semaphore, the internet, a telecommunications transmission system, or similar means, or knowingly installs or maintains equipment for that transmission or receipt, is guilty of a class C felony. The penalty is the one set in RCW 9A.20.021, which this section cites and which we did not reprint here. We will not invent the months or the fine from a section we did not open.

Subsection (2) says the ban does not apply to information or equipment relating to activities authorized by chapter 9.46, including sports wagering the chapter authorizes, when the activity complies with the chapter, the rules, and tribal-state compacts. Authorized gambling can use a network. Unauthorized gambling information cannot, on this text.

A 2006 note printed under the section states the policy: Washington prohibits all forms and means of gambling except where carefully and specifically authorized and regulated. The note says the internet and other technologies were not contemplated when the gambling act was enacted in 1973 or when the lottery commission was created in 1982, and that the legislature was reaffirming the ban on gambling that uses those technologies.

The section says "gambling information." It does not say "sweepstakes coin," "dual currency," or "promotional casino." If a company argues that its coins are not gambling information because a free entry exists, that argument has to defeat the word gambling, not a word the section never uses. We did not fetch a Washington appellate opinion that runs that argument for a modern sweeps site. We will not pretend the 2006 policy note is that opinion. We also will not pretend the note is empty. The legislature wrote down that unauthorized internet gambling is what it meant to keep prohibited.

Two balances. A play coin you may buy, which does not redeem. A promotional coin that does redeem, with a free method of entry in the rules. Casino-style chance games. The company is not a Washington cardroom, a tribal gaming operation under a compact, or the state lottery. Those are the authorized lanes subsection (2) points at. A sweeps brand does not become one of them by using slot art or by offering a mail-in.

A pure social app that never redeems is a different description. Whether that app still "transmits gambling information" is a question this section does not answer with a coin diagram. If nothing of value can be won, the gambling label is harder to hang. We still read the cashier. "No cash value" has to be true there.

On October 3, 2026, both contracts we opened exclude Washington.

Stake.us names Washington first in the excluded-state setting we downloaded, with Nevada, Idaho, New York, and a long list after.

Pulsz says you will not access the games from Washington, in the same sentence as Idaho, Nevada, New York, and others. The next sentence says you will not misrepresent your location or reach the service from a restricted territory via VPN or otherwise.

This is the operational ban players feel. It is older than a lot of the 2025 and 2026 statehouse fights. Brands did not wait for a bill titled "sweepstakes" before they cut Washington off. RCW 9.46.240 is the statute they are staring at, whether or not their terms cite it.

We have not opened every brand from a Washington IP for this note. A site that still loads is not a repeal. It is a site that has not implemented the block, or a cache, or a social mode. Check whether a redeemable coin exists before you call it a sweeps casino. If it exists, you are looking at the product the felony section's policy note is aimed at, even though the section never uses the product's marketing name.

We expect failure at signup or at the state dropdown. If we get further, we look for a Sweeps Coin balance and a cashier. Finding one is a reason to leave, not a reason to deposit. The class C felony language is about transmitting or receiving gambling information, and about installing equipment for that purpose. We are not going to grade a player's tap under that verb. We are going to say the offer itself is what the policy note describes as unauthorized internet gambling, unless it fits an authorized activity. A sweeps brand has not shown us a Washington authorization.

Old accounts and old balances are not given a refund calendar in 9.46.240. If you still have coins from years ago, the company's email is the document. Do not buy more to "complete" a playthrough. Do not VPN to a state the brand allows in order to cash out. Pulsz's terms forbid that path in a sentence, and Stake.us excludes the state outright.

Age follows the terms. The section we read does not set 18 or 21 for a sweeps player. Washington cardrooms are an adult environment under their own rules. We do not test minors.

Tribal gaming under a compact is the exception the statute writes down. It is not a sweeps login. If you play at a tribal facility, you are under that compact and that facility's rules. Do not mix the wallet with a promotional coin site and call them one bankroll.

We would not tell you to drive across the river into Oregon, leave the VPN off or on in some clever way, and keep the same account. Oregon was not on the two exclusion lists we read. Washington was. The access rule is about where you are. The statute is about transmitting gambling information by internet, not about which side of a bridge your ID lists. A false location makes the terms problem and the facts worse together.

We would not tell you RCW 9.46.240 contains a dual-currency definition. It does not, in the text we fetched. The definition you want, if you are comparing states, is the kind Tennessee and New Jersey wrote later. Washington's tool is older and broader: do not transmit gambling information unless the chapter authorizes the activity.

We would not quote a jail term. The section points at RCW 9A.20.021. We did not open it for this note. Class C felony is the grade we can say, because it is in 9.46.240 itself.

Read RCW 9.46.240, including subsection (2) and the 2006 policy note. Then assume a redeemable sweeps lobby is not on offer from any brand that is paying attention. Our testing stance matches the two terms we opened and the statute's policy line. We do not send Washington players into a dual-currency casino. A play-coin app with no prize is a different claim, and the cashier has to prove the prize is gone.