A San Francisco judge has dealt a significant blow to California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s push to restrict cardroom operations, blocking proposed regulations that would have effectively banned blackjack and reshaped how player-dealer games function across the state.

Superior Court Judge Richard Darwin ruled Thursday that Bonta’s office “likely exceeded its authority” by adopting regulations that would act as a statewide ban on some of cardrooms’ most popular offerings. The court granted a preliminary injunction to the California Gaming Association, allowing cardrooms to continue operating normally while the legal dispute plays out.

What the Ban Would Have Cost

The numbers tell the story. At Club One Casino in Fresno, blackjack alone represents 20% of revenue, with player-dealer games accounting for another 60%. Lose blackjack outright and face new restrictions on player-dealer rotation? For most independent cardrooms, that would have been devastating. Kyle Kirkland, President of the CGA and owner of Club One, was blunt about it.

“These are easily the most disruptive set of regulations I’ve seen in my two decades in this industry,” Kirkland told the Sacramento Bee. He wasn’t exaggerating. For many smaller operations, losing a fifth of revenue while putting another 40% in jeopardy would have meant the lights go out.

The Bigger Picture

This ruling is technically temporary. The case returns to court on June 30, and the underlying dispute reflects deeper tensions in California’s gaming landscape. Tribal nations have been pushing hard to protect what they view as exclusive gaming territory, with James Siva of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association calling Bonta’s regulations an “important step” against what he termed illegal gaming.

But here’s where it gets interesting. Tribes have already lost legal battles on this front. A Sacramento judge ruled last year that the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act preempts state tribal claims against cardrooms offering certain games. That didn’t stop the pressure though, and Bonta’s office has been a willing ally in that effort, even declaring daily fantasy sports illegal.

The cardroom industry has shown real vulnerability to regulatory overreach. Workers understand the stakes. That’s why they staged protests outside venues where Bonta was scheduled to speak, holding signs that cut straight to it: “No cardrooms, no jobs.”

For now, the cardrooms can breathe a bit easier. But with June 30 looming and significant political pressure from tribal gaming interests, this is far from settled.

What the team thinks

Sheena McAllister says:

This ruling highlights a critical tension in gambling regulation that we’ve seen play out repeatedly in the UK as well: the difference between regulatory authority and regulatory overreach. While Attorney General Bonta’s intent to modernise California’s cardroom framework may be sound, Judge Darwin’s decision rightly emphasises that wholesale game restrictions require legislative backing rather than executive regulation alone, a principle that keeps regulatory bodies accountable and predictable for operators. The real opportunity here is for California to use this as a catalyst for proper legislative review of cardroom regulations, mirroring how the UKGC balances innovation with consumer protection through transparent, evidence-based policymaking rather than regulatory shortcuts.