Louisiana Opinion On Sweepstakes Casinos Provides Roadmap For Other State AGs
In her legal opinion, Murrill highlighted several characteristics of online sweepstakes casinos that warranted their treatment as illegal gambling. She began by pointing to the pricing structure in which users 'may purchase 'Gold Coins' and receive free 'Sweeps Coins' 'as a bonus,' typically in the same dollar amount as the purchase, which can then be used to play casino games and be redeemed for cash or valuable prizes.' This 1:1 pricing correlation – coupled with the redeemability of Sweeps Coins into cash or valuable prizes on a similar 1:1 basis – indicates that the Gold Coins are merely a 'cover' for the purchase of Sweeps Coins.
Murrill also noted that several out-of-state courts addressing online sweepstakes casinos have outlined the elements that are indicative of the 'true purpose' of the online sites being the promotion of illegal gambling. 'These indicators,' she wrote, 'include a casino-like environment, the perpetual duration of the games, the high payout percentages of online casinos, the restrictions on the consumers' ability to redeem prizes, and customers valuing 'sweepstakes entries' more than the product, usually by immediately replenishing sweeps coin balances to continue playing games after running out through unsuccessful play.'
In determining that online sweepstakes casinos were illegal gambling businesses, Murrill focused on two of these 'indicators' in particular – the perpetual nature of the real-money games and their casino-like payouts: 'These operations are promoted year-round, are not in promotion of some legitimate business operation, feature jackpots and wagering elements, pay tables, and profit from user participation by selling tokens or credits,' she wrote.
'The sale of these coins along with the chance to win money and the ongoing operation of these platforms amounts to illegal gambling as a business,' Murrill concluded. She added that online sweepstakes casinos are not licensed or regulated and do not offer player protection safeguards, such as adequate age verification, geolocation, or know-your-customer protocols.
FEATURED | Frase ByForbes™
Unscramble The Anagram To Reveal The Phrase
Pinpoint By Linkedin
Guess The Category
Queens By Linkedin
Crown Each Region
Crossclimb By Linkedin
Unlock A Trivia Ladder
The opinion relies on existing law – both in Louisiana and nationally
The opinion was issued in response to a request from Louisiana state senator Rick Edmonds following the Governor's veto of Senate Bill 181, which sought to ban online sweepstakes casinos. Although he vetoed SB 181 after it had been unanimously approved by the legislature, Governor Landry acknowledged the current illegality of these websites by stating, in part:
In response to Governor Landry's veto message, the Louisiana Gaming Control Board issued 42 cease-and-desist notices to numerous illegal operators, including several prominent online sweepstakes casino businesses, ordering them to immediately terminate operations in Louisiana and threatening them with further enforcement action if they did not comply.
Murrill's opinion – which was issued just two weeks after the flurry of cease-and-desist notices were sent – is notable because it did not depend on new legislation being enacted. It relies solely on existing law, and, in particular, the well-established body of case law addressing perpetual 'casino-style' sweepstakes promotions, encompassing decisions from Alabama, Texas, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, and Ohio. In every one of those cases, the courts found the casino-themed real money sweepstakes games to be illegal gambling.
Indeed, as detailed previously in Forbes, every relevant judicial decision (at least 15 by my count) which addresses a 'casino-style' sweepstakes promotion that awarded users free entries to play real money games of chance in an amount commensurate with dollars spent found that the sweepstakes games constituted illegal gambling – even where free entries were available without a product purchase. Notably, five of these decisions were from Texas courts.
By contrast, you'd be hard-pressed to find even one judicial decision from this century that has upheld a sweepstakes promotion which incorporates casino-style games of chance.
The lesson here is that while legislation is certainly a valuable tool for memorializing the illegality of online sweepstakes casino operations, existing case law already provides state law enforcement officials with the requisite tools for declaring these businesses to be illegal.
Factors identified by courts as indicative of a 'gambling' scheme
With the vast majority of state legislatures having adjourned for the year, I suspect we will begin seeing more state attorneys generals addressing the legality of online sweepstakes casinos – either by issuing formal legal opinions (building off the analysis of the Louisiana Attorney General) or proceeding more aggressively by instituting civil enforcement actions.
One obvious candidate is Texas, especially since its legislature does not reconvene until early 2027 – leaving it unable to enact legislation banning online sweepstakes casinos (as several states have recently done). Another key factor favoring review is that the Louisiana Attorney General opinion relied in part on Texas law to determine that online sweepstakes casinos are illegal – so part of the analysis is already done. With its deep-rooted history of being an anti-gambling state and extensive body of case law addressing casino-themed sweepstakes games, Texas checks every box for attorney general review of the sweepstakes casino business model.
A threshold legal issue that must be addressed at the outset — regardless of the jurisdiction — is the element of payment, also known as 'consideration.' For context, many states' anti-gambling laws define an illegal lottery as comprised of three essential elements: prize, chance, and consideration (i.e., payment). Sweepstakes (which are typically random drawings for prizes) possess two of the three characteristics of a lottery: chance and a prize. Therefore, to avoid classification as an illegal lottery, a sweepstakes must not involve any consideration.
The approach used in Texas for determining whether consideration is paid for the product or the sweepstakes entries—or both—is the 'primary subject' analysis. Under this framework, consideration will be found where the product purchased to obtain the sweepstakes entries is not the 'primary subject' of the transaction, but rather is 'mere subterfuge' to promote sweepstakes play. As the district court explained in Texas v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, 'if entries to a sweepstakes are granted in connection with the purchase of a product, the product must be the 'primary subject of the transaction,' otherwise the payment is made to purchase an entry to win a prize, and the so-called sweepstakes is, in actuality, an illegal lottery.'
In making this evaluation, Texas courts have measured the product's value from two perspectives: that of the sweepstakes participants, and the sweepstakes sponsor. Courts which have addressed the legality of sweepstakes casino operations have outlined the elements that are indicative of the 'true purpose' being gambling. These elements include: (1) a 'casino-like' atmosphere; (2) the perpetual duration of the games; (3) high payout percentages; (4) a high degree of correlation between dollars spent and the number of sweepstakes entries received; (5) restrictions on the consumers' ability to redeem prizes; and (6) customers valuing the sweepstakes entries more than the promoted product, among other factors.
1. 'Casino-like' environment
Numerous courts have indicated that a 'casino-like' business model is anathema to a finding of a legitimate sweepstakes. As a Pennsylvania federal court observed in Telesweeps of Butler Valley, Inc. v. Kelley, '[f]or Plaintiff to argue that its sweepstakes is not gambling when it works to create a player experience which mimics casino-style games as closely as possible is too much for this Court to accept.' Likewise, in Texas v. Ysleta del sur Pueblo, a Texas federal court concluded that a sweepstakes operator's 'casino-like business model' – with 'rows and rows' of sweepstakes Kiosks 'that look similar to slot machines' – was 'clear and convincing evidence' that the 'true purpose' of the business 'is to 'create a place where people [are] comfortable staying . . . and playing the sweepstakes,' and not to promote a . . . product.'
Similarly, in United States v. Davis, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, applying Texas law, pointed to the 'casino-like atmosphere' of the Internet cafés – 'complete with tinted windows and free food and drink' and a 'a variety of casino-like games available on each computer terminal' – as persuasive evidence that 'the defendants' true purpose for the cafés was to create a place where people would be comfortable staying for a long time, purchasing Internet time and playing the sweepstakes.' Based on this evidence, the Fifth Circuit concluded that 'the main purpose and function' of the business 'was to induce people to play the sweepstakes, and that the Internet time sold by the cafés—albeit at fair market value—was not the primary subject of the transaction, but instead mere subterfuge.'
Along the same lines, the Texas Attorney General has declared that the 'nature of the appeal which the business makes to secure the patronage of its customers' is a controlling factor in determining whether a given scheme or business is a prohibited lottery. Here, the 'casino-like' atmosphere and imagery associated with the sweepstakes casino websites, as well as the aggressive online advertising which is carefully crafted to exploit the appeal of gambling and is frequently loaded with images of people holding outsized checks indicating how much money they won gambling on the websites, suggests that the 'true purpose' of the business is to promote sweepstakes play, as opposed to a good or service. New research published by the American Gaming Association confirms this. Among the key findings: 90% of sweepstakes casino users consider the activity to be gambling; 68% say their primary reason for playing is to win real money; and 69% describe sweepstakes casinos as platforms to wager real money.
As the California Court of Appeals appropriately observed in Lockyer v. Pacific Gaming Technologies, in referring to a slot machine-style sweepstakes promotion, 'if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it is a duck. And so it is with this duck.'
2. Perpetual duration
A traditional sweepstakes promotion 'is a limited-term event designed to attract consumer attention to a product or a business, and ordinarily expires after a few weeks or months.' For sweepstakes casinos, on the other hand, the sweepstakes games run perpetually.
This distinction has been cited by courts and state attorneys general as a critical factor in determining that a sweepstakes promotion was in fact a guise for illegal gambling. For example, in Barber v. Jefferson County Racing Assoc., Inc., the Alabama Supreme Court found that the perpetual duration of a slot machine-style sweepstakes promotion was indicative of its 'true purpose,' which was to legitimize illegal gambling. As the Barber Court explained, 'the duration of 'promotional sweepstakes occasionally offered by fast food chains, or in connection with candy, sodas, miscellaneous food or other established retail products,' is typically 'limited,' as opposed to the duration of the MegaSweeps, which is indefinite.'
Likewise, in a 2001 opinion, the South Carolina Attorney General described perpetual game promotions connected with the sale of two-minute phone cards as 'mere ruses' to avoid state gambling laws since the cards were never sold without the attached game pieces, suggesting that 'the consumer was really buying the opportunity to win a prize.' 'True promotional games, such as those offered by McDonald's and other legitimate business concerns,' the Attorney General observed, 'are always brief or temporary in duration, and the vast majority of the consumer product or service is always sold with no game of chance involved.'
More recently, the Louisiana Attorney General pointed to the 'perpetual duration' and 'ongoing nature' of the games as an indication that the 'true purpose' of online sweepstakes casinos was to promote illegal gambling. Based in part on this characteristic, the Louisiana Attorney General concluded that 'online businesses offering casino-style games—purporting to be sweepstakes or social gaming platforms—are operating in violation of Louisiana law.'
3. High Payout Percentages
The typical payout percentage for a temporary promotional sweepstakes is 'a trivial share of the revenue earned by the company.' For example, the grand prize for McDonald's annual Monopoly-themed sweepstakes is usually about $1 million, which is a tiny fraction of the billions of dollars that McDonald's earns each year. By contrast, online sweepstakes casinos claim to pay out in prize money between 80-96% of their revenues; notably, slot machines at commercial casinos typically pay out between 80 to 95 percent (depending on the state).
The highest courts of two states have pointed to the high payout percentage of a sweepstakes as indicative of a gambling scheme. In Barber, the Alabama Supreme Court noted that the 92% payout rate for the MegaSweeps promotion 'coincides with the industry standard for casino-style slot machines, which 'typically pay back 90% to 98% of all money played. By contrast, the typical payout percentage for a 'temporary promotional sweepstakes' is 'one half of one percent.'' The Barber Court found that 'the payout percentage and duration of the operation are indicative of 'the true purpose of the game,' which is to promote gambling.
Likewise, in Midwestern Enterprises, Inc. v. Stenehjem, the North Dakota Supreme Court addressed a telephone card vending machine that dispensed a two-minute telephone card, plus a chance to win up to $500 in cash for every dollar paid. The telephone card vending machine incorporated visual and audio 'gambling features,' and randomly dispensed a chance for cash prizes with each dollar risked, with a pay-out rate of 65%. The North Dakota Supreme Court characterized this 'high payout rate' as 'a distinguishing feature because it goes to the true purpose of the game,' which, again, was to promote gambling.
4. Sweeps Coins correspond nearly 1:1 with dollars spent
The pricing structure also makes clear that the primary subject of the transaction is to facilitate the sale of Sweeps Coins. While players can receive a limited number of Sweeps Coins for free through mail-ins, giveaways and other promotions, by far the most common way to obtain Sweeps Coins beyond a nominal amount is by purchasing Gold Coins. The more Gold Coins that a player purchases, the more Sweeps Coins the player also receives.
Critically, the number of Sweeps Coins received as a 'free' bonus corresponds with the amount of real money spent. As the Louisiana Attorney General noted, there is essentially a 1:1 correlation between the number of dollars spent and the number of Sweeps Coins provided in each purchase. So, for example, if someone buys a coin bundle for $30, they will typically receive 30 Sweeps Coins in addition to thousands of Gold Coins. The 1:1 equivalency between dollars spent and Sweeps Coins received — coupled with their redeemability into dollars on a 1:1 basis following successful play — indicates that, at least from the customers' perspective, they are paying in large part to acquire Sweeps Coins to engage in real-money gambling.
This is the same artifice that was used by 'Internet sweepstakes cafés' over a decade ago to offer real money casino-style gaming under the guise of a sweepstakes promotion. These gambling operations – often located in suburban strip malls – would claim to sell Internet access time to consumers and, as part of an alleged 'sweepstakes promotion,' consumers would receive a corresponding number of 'sweepstakes points' for each dollar spent on the service. These 'points' – which were redeemable for cash – would then be used to wager on casino-style games that were played on computer terminals provided at the Internet cafés.
Courts throughout the country have repeatedly determined that such tactics were an obvious pretext and cover for illegal gambling. For example, in Telesweeps of Butler Valley, Inc. v. Kelley, a Pennsylvania federal district court held that the purchase of a long-distance telephone card that comes with a commensurate number of free entries to participate in a 'casino-style' sweepstakes constituted 'indirect consideration' to participate in the sweepstakes, even though (like here) no purchase was necessary and several alternative methods of free entry were available. In rejecting the defendant's argument that the customer was simply paying for long-distance telephone calling minutes and not the sweepstakes entries, the Court declared that 'plaintiff's attempt to separate the consideration from the chance to win by inserting a step between the two elements is clever, but it merely elevates form over substance. At bottom, what Telesweeps is doing constitutes gambling.'
A similar sweepstakes scheme was addressed by an Ohio appellate court in Cleveland v. Thorne, where patrons received 100 sweepstakes points for every $1 spent on network access time and could use those points to play simulated 'casino-style' games at the defendants' internet sweepstakes cafés, and, following successful play, could exchange their 'winning points' for cash at a value of one cent per point. On appeal following a criminal conviction for operating a gambling house in violation of Ohio's anti-gambling laws, the defendants argued that the network access time was a 'valuable product that patrons paid for and received' and 'the sweepstakes points were given free as a promotion and had no actual value.'
In affirming the defendants' convictions, the Ohio Court of Appeals memorably stated that 'the justice system is not some lumbering oaf who must ignore the patently obvious gambling scheme apparent here simply because of a contrived separation between consideration and the scheme of chance.' The Ohio appellate court declared that '[t]he law in this arena serves no purpose to elevate form to such a high degree that the nature of the transaction should be ignored,' adding that 'there is no justification for ignoring the nature of the transaction simply because the system is designed in such a way as to artificially isolate one part of the illegal transaction from another. The justice system is not so blinded by chicanery.'
Online sweepstakes casinos 'are utilizing the same concept,' the Louisiana Attorney General wrote. Just like the Internet sweepstakes cafés found to be illegal gambling businesses in Telesweeps and Thorne, online sweepstakes casinos artificially separate the consideration from the chance to win real money by claiming that the payment is for a 'product' (i.e., Gold Coins) and the sweepstakes entries (i.e., Sweeps Coins) are 'free,' while conveniently providing the purchaser with an allotment of Sweeps Coins that is equivalent in value to the amount of money spent. The nearly 1:1 ratio of Sweeps Coins to dollars spent sends a clear and unmistakable message to consumers interested in real-money casino gambling – i.e., that they can just ignore the Gold Coins and focus instead on the Sweeps Coins allotment (in essence, paying $30 for 30 Sweeps Coins). As to those customers, the 'controlling inducement' for the transaction is clearly 'the lure of an uncertain prize' – a characteristic which the Texas Attorney General has declared is synonymous with an illegal lottery.
5. Restrictions on the ability to redeem prizes
Conditions designed to keep customers playing longer are indicative that the true purpose of the sweepstakes is to promote gambling, as opposed to a good or service. Unlike traditional sweepstakes where prizes can be claimed immediately, most online sweepstakes casinos have a 'minimum permitted redemption' threshold that limits a user's ability to redeem prizes unless their Sweeps Coins balance is above a certain amount. In most cases, the withdrawal threshold is 100 Sweeps Coins. Thus, if a customer never reaches 100 Sweeps Coins won, they can never redeem anything. This causes consumers to continue playing and eventually lose their remaining Sweeps Coins balance, leading them to purchase more Gold Coin packages just to get an additional allotment of 'free' Sweeps Coins in order to continue playing.
This is further compounded by a 'playthrough requirement,' which refers to the number of times that a user must play through his or her allotted Sweeps Coins before they become eligible for redemption. For example, if a user receives 100 Sweeps Coins and those Sweeps Coins have a playthrough requirement multiplier of 2x, a user must play games totaling 200 Sweeps Coins prior to those coins being eligible for redemption as a prize. Many online sites have a 2x or greater playthrough requirement multiplier, with the discretion to increase the multiplier up to a maximum of 20x. This requires users to continue playing – even after a successful first spin – and increases the likelihood that they will gamble – and lose – all of their remaining Sweeps Coins, leading them to purchase even more Gold Coins (just to get an additional allotment of 'free' Sweeps Coins as a bonus) in an effort to try to satisfy both the playthrough requirement and a restarted minimum permitted redemption threshold.
The Fifth Circuit has declared that conditions designed to keep patrons playing longer are indicative of the 'true purpose' of the transaction being the promotion of the sweepstakes, not the purported 'product' or 'service.' In United States v. Davis, the Fifth Circuit, applying Texas law, found the evidence established that 'the defendants' true purpose for the cafés was to create a place where people would be comfortable staying for a long time, purchasing Internet time and playing the sweepstakes' in a 'casino-like atmosphere.' Thus, the Fifth Circuit concluded that 'the main purpose and function' of the business 'was to induce people to play the sweepstakes, and that the Internet time sold by the cafés—albeit at fair market value—was not the primary subject of the transaction, but instead mere subterfuge.'
6. Customers value sweepstakes entries more than the product
The degree to which customers valued the sweepstakes entries over the promoted product is also indicative of whether the true purpose of the transaction is to promote sweepstakes play. In United States v. Davis, the Fifth Circuit recited the following evidence as indicia that consideration fueled the sweepstakes:
A review of customers' account activity and game-play history can shed important light on this factor. There are two obvious time horizons at which the customers' account activity and game play should be assessed: (1) following the customer's initial purchase of Gold Coins; and (2) when Sweeps Coins balances are depleted following unsuccessful play. First, as to customers who purchased Gold Coins and received an allotment of 'free' Sweeps Coins as a bonus, to what extent are they playing the Sweeps Coins over the Gold Coins? If a significant percentage of purchasing customers continually bypass their ample supply of Gold Coins in favor of playing Sweeps Coins, that would be a clear indication that the Sweeps Coins, and not the supposedly promoted product (Gold Coins), are the 'primary subject' of the transaction.
For example, in People ex rel. Green v. Grewal, the California Supreme Court found that the element of consideration was satisfied by evidence showing that the customers 'who bought Internet time seemed to spend more time playing the games than using the Internet' and that 'two-thirds of the purchased telephone time' was never used. Based on this disparity of sweepstakes play to actual product use, the California Supreme Court concluded that the internet café's customers were 'clearly paying, at least in part, and, it appears in large part, for the opportunity to play the casino-style sweepstakes games and win cash prizes.'
Second — and perhaps even more telling — what typically happens when customers with an abundance of Gold Coins in their online accounts run out of Sweeps Coins following unsuccessful sweepstakes play? Do they go back to their stockpile of Gold Coins and switch to the social casino games (where such coins cannot be redeemed for cash or any prizes) purely for the entertainment value? Or do they seek to immediately replenish their Sweeps Coins balances – and continue playing real money casino-style games – by purchasing additional Gold Coin packages that are bundled with a 'bonus' allotment of 'free' Sweeps Coins?
If a significant percentage of users opted to replenish their depleted Sweeps Coin balances by purchasing additional Gold Coin packages – despite already having a large cache of Gold Coins in their online accounts (even relatively small purchases can garner 'hundreds of thousands' of Gold Coins) – that would be compelling evidence that users valued the sweepstakes entries (i.e., Sweeps Coins) more than the promoted product (i.e., Gold Coins), justifying a finding that the Sweeps Coins were the 'primary subject' of the transaction.
There is strong anecdotal evidence that online sweepstakes casino spenders are far more interested in the 'free' Sweeps Coins included as a 'bonus' when they purchase Gold Coin packages. An online survey conducted by the American Gaming Association in June 2025 found that, among players who spend money on these platforms, 67% said that they were 'primarily interested' in obtaining the Sweeps Coins rather than Gold Coins, emphasizing the appeal of the virtual tokens with redeemable cash value. Of these spenders, 76% said Sweeps Coins were either 'very' or 'extremely important' in deciding whether to buy a package.
While this type of account-level review may ultimately require some degree of fact-gathering and investigation – in contrast to other above-described factors that are evident on their face – these details are within the possession and control of the sweepstakes companies and can readily be subpoenaed and/or demanded through the civil litigation discovery process.
7. Alternative methods of free entry do not negate consideration
Sweepstakes laws do not allow operators to bypass strict anti-gambling laws merely by offering free ways to enter. As several Texas courts have recognized, 'the mere pretense of free prizes designed to evade the law, [will] not negate the element of consideration.' For example, in Jester, the Texas Court of Appeals found consideration was present in a sweepstakes even though players could obtain free entries by sending in a postage-paid request form. The Court explained that, notwithstanding the availability of free entries:
Thus, where the 'primary subject of the transaction' is to promote sweepstakes play, the existence of alternative methods of free entry will not negate the element of consideration. As discussed above, the following characteristics indicate that the online sites' true purpose is to promote sweepstakes play: (1) the 'casino-themed' environment which allows users to readily switch between non-redeemable 'standard mode' and real money 'promotional sweepstakes mode,' along with information about the user's Sweeps Coins balance constantly displayed near the top of the screen; (2) the perpetual duration of the real-money games; (3) the high payout percentages; (4) the nearly 1:1 correlation between dollars spent and Sweeps Coins received; (5) conditions designed to ensure that customers spend more time playing the real-money games; and (6) customers valuing Sweeps Coins more than the promoted product.
In addition, the alternative methods of free entry utilized by many online sweepstakes casino websites do not appear to comply with Texas law, which requires, at a minimum, that: (i) free entries be 'readily and conveniently available'; (ii) the number of free entries offered to non-paying customers cannot be 'nominal'; and (iii) paid entries and free entries must be treated equally. The 'overriding issue,' according to the Texas Attorney General, is whether 'customers' and 'non-customers' are treated equally 'in every respect.' If 'any character of favoritism' is shown to paying entrants, the scheme will be treated as a prohibited lottery.
Online sweepstakes casinos treat paying customers much more favorably than non-paying customers in several respects. First, there is clear preferential treatment in the awarding of Sweeps Coins. While most online platforms offer several ways to get free entries without requiring a product purchase – such as by mailing a postcard to a P.O. Box address – the number of free entries awarded to non-paying customers is typically a very low amount – usually no more than 5 Sweeps Coins. By contrast, there is no limit to the number of Sweeps Coins that paying customers can obtain. The more Gold Coins that a player purchases, the more Sweeps Coins the player also receives. So, while a paying customer willing to spend $100 on a coin bundle will typically receive around 100 Sweeps Coins as a bonus, the non-paying customer who mails in a postcard is capped at 5 Sweeps Coins – a nominal amount.
A second way in which online sweepstakes casinos treat non-paying customers less favorably than paying customers is through the often-lengthy delays that are experienced in claiming a nominal amount of 'free' Sweeps Coins through the mail. Under Texas law, free sweepstakes entries must be 'readily and conveniently available.' The process for obtaining free entries through the mail – one of the most common alternative methods of free entry – is anything but. While paying customers immediately have their accounts credited with Sweeps Coins when they purchase a coin package, non-paying customers who submit a mail-in postcard to a designated Post Office Box address typically have to wait several weeks, and sometimes months, before their accounts are credited with a nominal amount of Sweeps Coins.
8. Legitimacy of the product is doubtful
Finally, in addition to all the other characteristics indicating that online sweepstakes casino websites are illegal gambling businesses (i.e., the clear presence of consideration, the casino-like business model, the perpetual nature of the sweepstakes games, and casino-like payouts), there are serious questions over whether the valueless virtual currency promoted by the real-money casino games are even legitimate products for purposes of a sweepstakes promotion.
In California, for example, virtual currency is not a bona fide consumer good. Every California court that has considered the issue has held that virtual currency is not a consumer 'good' or 'service' because it is an intangible asset falling outside the scope of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Thus, the virtual 'Gold Coins' that are being touted as the product promoted by the sweepstakes games are not even considered bona fide products under California law.
Likewise, under Texas law, a promotional sweepstakes must be connected to the purchase of a 'legitimate product.' Products having 'little or no value' are viewed with skepticism by Texas authorities. As the Texas Attorney General explained in a 1997 legal opinion: '[i]f a product of little or no value is being sold in conjunction with a sweepstakes ticket, the consideration may be deemed to have been paid for the privilege of entering the sweepstakes.' Further, Texas law also requires that 'the payment must be made for a non-gaming product; the product cannot be a sham existing to disguise what is actually a payment to the play the game.'
Any claim of product legitimacy is belied by the fact that the virtual 'Gold Coins' do not have any monetary value and cannot under any circumstances be redeemed for cash or prizes. Further, the only 'product' offered are casino games – there is no separate 'non-gaming' line of business being promoted by these companies. Unlike legitimate sweepstakes and rewards loyalty programs, such as those offered by McDonald's or Starbucks, online sweepstakes casinos 'are not offered in furtherance of a legitimate business of goods,' Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill concluded. The 'persistent, predatory and profit-driven' casino-style sweepstakes platforms bear no resemblance to those legitimate promotions, she added.
State AGs are the next legal frontier in the battle over sweeps
Murrill's opinion is just the latest example of state attorney general engagement on the issue of online sweepstakes casinos. Earlier this year, New York Attorney General Letitia James sent cease-and-desist letters to 26 online sweepstakes casino operators, ordering them to 'immediately cease all prohibited gambling activity . . . in New York.' The net result – every recipient voluntarily terminated operations in New York. In West Virginia, State Attorney General John McCuskey issued 47 subpoenas to many of the same companies. Although none have responded formally, more than 20 platforms have since withdrawn from West Virginia.
What does that tell you?
That these companies will back down when challenged by state officials.
Over the last 18 months, ten states – New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Delaware, Connecticut, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, and Arizona – have collectively sent over 100 cease-and-desist letters to the operators of dozens of sweepstakes casino websites. Notably, not a single lawsuit was filed challenging the validity of any of those letters. Contrast that with the recent C&D letters that were sent to prediction market platform Kalshi, which responded in nearly every instance by filing a lawsuit against the state issuing the demand.
To put it in proper perspective, one company (Kalshi) challenged every single cease-and-desist letter whenever the issuing state demanded immediate compliance. By contrast, not a single one of the dozens of sweepstakes casino platforms which received over 100 cease-and-desist letters in the aggregate were willing to challenge even one of those demands in court.
The failure of the sweeps industry to challenge even so much as one cease-and-desist letter is almost tantamount to an admission of illegality.
What were they so afraid of?
Apparently, the law.
Which is one reason why attorney general opinions can be so extraordinarily helpful.
Unlike cease-and-desist letters which are directed only against specific companies, a legal opinion from a state attorney general has much broader application, and, in contrast to the legislative process, does not require a formal process or notice before an opinion is issued.
Importantly, it can serve as legal precedent and provide the foundation for future civil and criminal enforcement actions against companies which operate in defiance of the opinion.
And the timing could not be more perfect.
Earlier this week, a coalition of 50 state attorneys general submitted an unprecedented letter to U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi requesting the federal government's assistance in curbing 'the rampant spread of illegal offshore gaming operations across the United States.'
Specifically, the State AGs asked Bondi to 'deploy robust legal tools' available under federal law, specifically mentioning the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act and the Illegal Gambling Business Act, which empower the DOJ to block access to illegal websites and 'seize assets—including servers, domains, and proceeds—that illegal gambling operations use.'
However, each of these federal anti-gambling statutes is triggered by a violation of state law.
In other words, to prove a violation of the IGBA (which allows seizure of the domains), the DOJ would have to demonstrate that there was a violation of state anti-gambling laws.
The DOJ's federal case would be aided immeasurably by a state attorney general formal legal opinion declaring that the online sweepstakes casino business model is illegal under state law.
That would certainly go a long way towards helping the Justice Department help the States.
And if 'collaboration' is the goal, this is the best way for State AGs to set the table for the feds.
But state attorneys general should also pursue civil enforcement remedies under state law. As I have previously written in Forbes, the most effective and efficient way to combat the proliferation of online sweepstakes casinos may be through the vast civil enforcement powers of state attorneys general, who are typically authorized under state law to seek wide-ranging remedies such as injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement of profits, sequestration of assets, and civil penalties to address illegal activity. Additionally, State AGs can pursue action against other actors who materially assist, aid, abet, or promote illegal gambling operations.
Unlike legislation, which is usually forward-looking, civil enforcement actions can look back and address prior misconduct. Without question, an injunction requiring the illegal operator to cease doing business in the state, combined with the forced payment of tens (or even hundreds) of millions of dollars to injured consumers and state treasury in the form of restitution and civil penalties, can serve as a powerful deterrent to other companies violating state gambling laws. It can accomplish in just one case what dozens of cease-and-desist orders cannot possibly achieve in what is fast becoming an endless game of 'whack-a-mole.'
Either way, Murrill's opinion – the first one issued by any state attorney general on the subject – will likely prompt closer examination of the issue by other State AG's offices.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
After Sitting on the Sidelines For 14 Months, Warren Buffett Could Be Buying One of His Favorite Stocks Again
Key Points Warren Buffett has been a net seller of stocks in each of the last 11 quarters. While he doesn't time the market, Buffett won't buy stocks if they don't trade below his estimate of intrinsic value. This stock's price has come down from its all-time high while its financials improve, making it a more appealing value right now. 10 stocks we like better than Berkshire Hathaway › Warren Buffett hasn't seen a lot to like in the stock market recently. In fact, he and his team of investment managers at Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A) (NYSE: BRK.B) have been net sellers of stocks for 11 straight quarters. Buffett's stock sales have accelerated over the past five quarters. That includes monster sales of Berkshire's stakes in Apple and Bank of America. In the meantime, he's stopped buying one stock investors had seen him buy consistently each quarter since mid-2018. As a result, Berkshire's cash pile has climbed to a whopping $344 billion. But the market may be offering Buffett an opportunity to start buying his favorite stock again, and investors should consider doing the same. Buffett isn't timing the market Buffett's big stock sales over the last few years and his lack of purchases may be seen by some as the Oracle of Omaha trying to predict the future and time the market. While it might look like market timing, Buffett is merely sticking to what's worked for him as an investor for the last 60 years or so. "We try to price, rather than time, purchases," Buffett wrote in his 1994 letter to shareholders. The same could be said of Berkshire's stock sales. If the market is offering a massive premium on one of Berkshire's holdings, Buffett ought to sell it, pocket the cash, and look for opportunities in stocks trading well below their intrinsic value. That could even include buying Berkshire Hathaway shares themselves. In fact, the board of directors updated its share repurchase policy in 2018, allowing Buffett to buy back shares of the company as long as it traded below its intrinsic value, conservatively determined. Buffett quickly went to work buying back shares following that change, indicating that the stock looked like a bargain. Between 2018 and May 2024, Buffett spent $78 billion buying back shares of Berkshire Hathaway. Over the last 14 months, however, Buffett hasn't spent a single dollar buying back the stock based on Berkshire's quarterly earnings reports. He holds himself to the same high standards he expects of the CEOs of all the companies Berkshire invests in. "All stock repurchases should be price-dependent. What is sensible at a discount to business-value becomes stupid if done at a premium," he wrote in his 2023 letter to shareholders. But Berkshire shares have fallen considerably since Buffett announced he would step down as CEO at the end of the year during the company's annual meeting in May. And after a further sell-off sparked by its second-quarter earnings report, shares are starting to look a lot more appealing. That could open the door for Buffett to start buying back Berkshire's stock. Will Buffett start buying again? Berkshire Hathaway's earnings disappointed many investors, leading the market to sell off the stock. After a stellar 2024, the insurance business is back to more normalized operations, including big payouts earlier this year due to the California wildfires. That's led to a drop in underwriting profits, which pushed the conglomerate's total operating earnings down nearly 4% last quarter. It's worth noting, however, that Berkshire faced significant foreign exchange headwinds last quarter, which negatively affected operating earnings. Berkshire also wrote down its Kraft Heinz investment by $5 billion. That follows a $3 billion impairment charge it took in 2019. That further negatively affected reported earnings. Nonetheless, Buffett has seen the book value per share of Berkshire Hathaway climb, including a 2.1% gain from the first quarter, and a 10.9% increase from a year ago. Combined with the declining stock price over the last three months, Berkshire Hathaway shares now trade for a price-to-book ratio of about 1.5. That's an important valuation, because when Buffett last repurchased shares of Berkshire, the stock traded below that valuation. The stock has rarely dipped below that price since last May. But shares are certainly more attractive after the sell-off. A couple of factors could keep Buffett from buying at the current price. First, Berkshire's marketable equity portfolio is a significant factor in its book value. Buffett may still see most of the stocks in the portfolio as overpriced, especially as stocks continued to climb over the past year. That would push him to require a lower multiple for Berkshire stock, since repurchasing Berkshire shares would also mean purchasing a small piece of its equity portfolio. The other factor is that he may want to use a significant chunk of cash to bolster the railroad business in the near future. Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern have agreed to a merger, threatening the competitiveness of Berkshire's Burlington Northern Santa Fe. When you consider the strength of Berkshire's balance sheet and that it's not relying on insurance float for any capital at this point, it should trade for a higher price-to-book value ratio than it has historically. With shares trading around 1.5 times book value, the stock finally looks to be trading near its intrinsic value again, making it worth buying. Should you buy stock in Berkshire Hathaway right now? Before you buy stock in Berkshire Hathaway, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Berkshire Hathaway wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $653,427!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,119,863!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,060% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 182% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 4, 2025 Bank of America is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Adam Levy has positions in Apple and Union Pacific. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Apple and Berkshire Hathaway. The Motley Fool recommends Kraft Heinz and Union Pacific. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. After Sitting on the Sidelines For 14 Months, Warren Buffett Could Be Buying One of His Favorite Stocks Again was originally published by The Motley Fool
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Reddit Stock Skyrocketed This Week
Key Points Reddit reported its second-quarter results on July 31, and the stock has been on a tear since then. Reddit's sales and earnings are rising rapidly. Data licensing for artificial intelligence models has turned into a powerful growth driver for Reddit. 10 stocks we like better than Reddit › Reddit (NYSE: RDDT) stock continued to rocket higher in this week's trading thanks to strong quarterly results. The social media player's price rose 14.2% over the last week of trading. Reddit published its second-quarter report on July 31, and the results spurred a surge in bullish momentum that extended into this week's trading. The company's share price is now up roughly 308% over the last year of trading. Reddit stock roars higher on big Q2 beats Reddit's second-quarter report arrived with results that caused investors to adopt a far more bullish stance on the company's outlook. In Q2, Reddit reported a profit of $0.45 per share on sales of $500 million. The performance came in far better than the average analyst estimate, which had targeted earnings per share of $0.19 and revenue of $426 million. The company's sales increased 78% year over year in the period, and the strong performance beats caused a wide range of Wall Street analysts to significantly increase their one-year price targets on the stock. With excitement surrounding Reddit's future growing, strong post-earnings valuation gains continued over the last week of trading. What's next for Reddit? For the current quarter, Reddit expects its sales to come in between $535 million and $545 million. Hitting the midpoint of that guidance range would mean posting year-over-year sales growth of roughly 55% in the third quarter. Reddit is seeing strong sales and earnings momentum in conjunction with data generated from its platform being a go-to resource for the training of artificial intelligence (AI) models. While the platform's user base has historically monetized at relatively low levels compared to other social sites, data licensing for AI models seems to have changed the game. Should you invest $1,000 in Reddit right now? Before you buy stock in Reddit, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Reddit wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $653,427!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,119,863!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,060% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 182% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 4, 2025 Keith Noonan has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Why Reddit Stock Skyrocketed This Week was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
19 Toxic Mothers Who Do NOT Deserve To Be Parents
We recently asked the BuzzFeed Community, "If you have an unhealthy relationship with your mom, what's been your experience?" Unfortunately there were many stories filled with horrific things moms did to their kids. They're extremely toxic and unbelievable, and have left a very damaging mark on folks today. So, here are some deeply horrible things moms did to their kids: Warning: Some stories include topics of child abuse, verbal abuse, and suicide. Please proceed with caution. 1."When I was a teenager, my boyfriend cheated on my mother. They tried to keep it a secret — when I broke up with him, my mother let him MOVE INTO OUR HOUSE. She tried to tell me I was 'crazy' to think that they would be together. I genuinely believed I may have been 'crazy' — who would do that to their own daughter? I must be 'losing it.' When I got a new boyfriend, this ex went wild. His own mother called the cops to my home because she knew he was angry (he told the cop that he was going to kill me if it was the last thing he did). I was put into a cop car for my protection, and he was put into a cop car to be taken for psych evaluation. I watched my mother follow the cop car he was in while I, at 16 years old, was there alone in a cop car." "I moved out of my own house. I eventually saw texts between them that proved they were together a few years later, and I confronted them again. They still tried to deny it all, but everybody knew at this point. They dated up until five years ago (11 years dating total). She was only open about the fact they were an actual couple once they broke up." —Anonymous 2."My earliest memories are of my mom telling me that she had only wanted four children, and had been so disappointed when she became pregnant with me (her fifth). That was the start of what has been one long, manipulative relationship. Now she's in her 80s, and she constantly tells stories from my childhood about what a good mother she was (these stories never happened). If anyone suggests that her recollection is less than accurate, that begins a months-long barrage of angry messages about what an ungrateful person I am. I keep her at arms length for my own peace of mind, as do all of my siblings. I just want it to be over honestly." —s42bb9c35d 3."I finally got the courage to leave my husband after staying for several years to be with my kids. My youngest child had been diagnosed with ASD, ADHD, and learning disabilities. My mother told me to stay in my unhappy marriage because 'no one would ever love me, let alone want to date me because of my son.' The joke's on her because I have been with my fiancé for six years now (I should have dated him in high school in the first place)." —Anonymous 4."Last year I attempted suicide, resulting in my mother and father moving me from Southern California to Idaho. They cared for me as I recovered, but when I refused to stay in their home for the two years my mother expected, she showed her true form. I was belittled for attending therapy (I ended up doing it via Zoom in their shed). My clothes were piled under the rear wheel of my car and run over, and the cherry on top? I was asked to leave briskly at breakfast after only a month of the proposed timeline — as in, my mother ushered me to pack my bags immediately afterwards. I left by noon the same day. My dad uncomfortably conceded to her requests and opinions." —Anonymous 5."My mother was terrible to me growing up — she was a covert narcissist. She would ridicule my appearance, told me that nobody would ever be friends with me, and claimed I would be a failure as an adult. She constantly compared me to my eldest sister, who was 'the golden child.' On my wedding day, she told me I looked pregnant in the wedding gown that I picked out (I wasn't pregnant — I was a size 0). My entire life I hated myself [because of her] — I was never good enough, smart enough, or pretty enough. In my 30s, I finally went to counseling and realized what was wrong. I cut her off a few years ago (my sisters did, too), and since then, I've learned I'll never be perfect. But I am beautiful and smart and successful, and I have a good heart (and I'm working on loving the person I am, which is much easier without her in my life)." —Anonymous 6."My mom told me she wished I had died on life support in the NICU. Her defense to the judge when she tried to then sue me for just shy of $12,000 was 'she was a difficult child — she deserved it.' We also had a 'couch funeral' for a family member where my mom turned the conversation topic to the red light district in Amsterdam and sex work. Additionally, she cheated on my father with multiple men (including an international drug smuggler) — the list goes on. We aren't in contact (for obvious reasons). Good riddance to her! I am proud to have broken the cycle." —Anonymous 7."I'm adopted, and my birth mom and I got in contact when I was 15. At first we were super close, but then she acted more like an older sibling than a parental figure. She flirted with guys I dated and would get my friends' numbers and talk to them regularly (but hardly return my calls or messages). My ex (who she didn't even want me to be with) and I finally split because he had been cheating on me and eventually left me for someone else. She told me I needed to do more to 'win him back.' When I got a new partner, she acted like she wasn't over my ex and me breaking up the whole time. But weeks later, my ex visited her with the girl he cheated on me with and posted pics online saying how good it was to see them and meet her." —Anonymous 8."My mother was a slew of toxicity, from giving me Playgirl magazines at age 11 to kicking me out of the car miles from home because she was mad at me for wanting birth control at 17. Then there was the time she picked on a random girl at a department store (who my mother thought her boyfriend was cheating on her with). She made me call this poor girl to scream at her and call her a 'whore' — I was 12 (and, my mother was married to my father at the same time). And there was another time when she tried to help when she saw a car accident — she discovered it was a classmate of mine who died. She came home and told me that she had a piece of my friend stuck to her shoe instead of comforting me. Sadly, the list goes on." —Anonymous 9."My mom and I have always had a very contentious relationship (she's a classic narcissist), and we've had plenty of conflict over the years. But, I've always tried to maintain some form of a relationship with her because hey — she's my mom. No matter what, I loved her. That is, until the day we ate lunch at Outback Steakhouse with my then-6-year-old daughter (who has ASD). My mom was asking how school and therapy were going, and we somehow got on the topic of ableism. I was about to make a point, and I started my sentence with, 'I don't bemoan the fact that she has autism,' and my mom cut me off with, 'Well, of course you wish she didn't have autism.' She said this IN FRONT of my daughter, who could understand every word her grandmother was saying. I stared at my mom for a second and said (as clearly as I could), 'I wouldn't change a single thing about her. Autism is part of who she is, and I think she's perfect.'" "My mom rolled her eyes and changed the subject, but something had shifted in me in that moment. I'm biased, but my kid is one of the sweetest, kindest, smartest, funniest people I've ever met. She hasn't had a friend or teacher or coach or therapist who didn't adore her, and the fact that my mom could say something so casually hurtful to her face? I've distanced myself and my family from her as much as possible since. I don't feel the love that I used to feel when I interacted with her. She killed it with one off-handed sentence — now I'm just focusing on being the best mom I can be to my own kiddo." —Anonymous 10."I think something that is seriously underestimated as a source of mother-daughter trauma is being your mother's emotional support person. That was me. Every problem, I knew about it. Every fight, I heard it — all her trauma? Yep, I was her personal therapist, all as a child. Things only got worse as I got into my late teens and early 20s. It turned me into a people pleaser, and someone who reflexively puts everyone else's needs before my own. It has taken me a LONG time and a LOT of therapy to even start breaking those patterns." —Anonymous 11."When my family unfortunately become unhoused due to my mother's erratic financial decisions, she purchased McDonald's for my sisters and me. She only did this to physically throw it into the bushes because we hadn't done our chores for the day (for context, we were squatting on a giant farmland). My sisters and I slept in an old shack, and my mother and dad slept in the van. They had been gone for over eight hours that day doing god knows what — we hadn't eaten for a couple of days and were starving. To this day I'm still not sure what chores they expected us to be doing." —Anonymous 12."My mom clearly has a preference for her husband (my stepfather) over me. I don't feel welcome in my own house, and they make it clear they'd rather it be just the two of them. They'd only do fun things together and barely with me. She's not willing to try to learn more about my interests (her interests are reading and Formula 1, so we can barely do anything together). She also doesn't have much maternal instinct — when I broke my foot, she was clearly annoyed at times when she had to take care of me. My girlfriend (who I had only been with for about 10 months) had to shower me because my mom had no interest in taking care of me, other than giving me some food." "My mother-in-law is more of a mother figure to me (combined with my very caring girlfriend, I feel healthy and sane). It'll always be sad to me that my in-laws will do a lot for me (they were willing to drive me places when my foot was still broken and other favors), and my mom seems annoyed to even bring me breakfast. When I tell her I long for a family like my girlfriend's, a tight family with parents who actually enjoy spending time with their kids, she'll invalidate my feelings. She basically says I can't feel that way. I get that she can't help my dad left her, but I'm allowed to mourn the family I could've had." —Anonymous 13."I don't have a relationship with my mother because she left my dad and me when I was 9 years old. No note, no explanation. She rarely showed for visitation or paid child support, and didn't fight for custody of me during the divorce. What was so devastating was prior to her abandoning me, I thought she was my best friend — I felt loved and cared for. After she left, she was distant and cold. I asked her so many times why she left me, and all she would say was, 'You'll understand when you're older.' The last time I spoke to her I was 15, and I'm 50 now. I don't know where she lives or anything about her besides what I've found online. Her abandonment deeply affected my ability to trust and love anyone — I never married and had kids." —Anonymous 14."During my teen years, nothing could happen without drama — everything had to be a fight (everrrrrrythiiiiiiing had to be a fight). I could be alone in my room (which was where I retreated to actively avoid her) and she would barge in with something new. I purchased a lock for my bedroom door when I was 13 years old. My dad (who she was still married to) had to be nice to me behind her back to avoid repercussions. I started to think maybe it was actually me because my siblings never felt any wrath — not a drop. They were given cars and houses (meanwhile, I was draining my bank account for Ubers because my car kept breaking down and my rent kept skyrocketing). To say they got away with murder is only an understatement." —Anonymous 15."We used to have a good relationship until 2008 — I could go to her house when I needed a break from taking care of my kids. She'd let me sleep in and take care of them. She always helped me out and was there for us — but after I moved out of state, she really screwed me over. I had to put nearly everything I owned in storage at home and moved two states away. I had a problem getting up-to-speed in the new place and keeping up with the payment on the storage unit. She convinced me to send her the key and she would get everything out and keep it until I could get established and get back home to get it all. I had no reason not to trust her, so that's what I did." "It took me four years to get back, only for me to find out she had gotten rid of nearly everything I owned — an entire house-full of stuff. She never told me why, and she has never admitted or apologized since that time. I completely stopped talking to her in 2008, and although I do see her (she lives with my sister), we don't really have a relationship." —Anonymous 16."I could give a laundry list of issues, but one of the major things she did that really messed me up was shutting down and withholding love when she got mad or upset with me. I would feel horribly guilty and desperate to win her affection back. I learned from my mom that 'I am upset with you' means 'I don't like you, and I am going to punish you by becoming emotionally unavailable, and it is both your fault and your responsibility to fix.'" "This led to me letting people trample my boundaries in a major way because I literally felt panic when people got upset (to the point that I would apologize even when the other person was in the wrong). I was so afraid of pushing people away that I would accept horrible treatment out of fear of abandonment. I think she did her best, I just don't think she had the tools to be the mother I needed. She hasn't changed, but through therapy I've learned to set boundaries and give myself the things I needed as a kid that she couldn't provide." —Anonymous 17."I was pregnant with my first child due May 2020, so in the beginning of the pandemic. My mom was mad because I canceled my baby shower because of the pandemic. She said, 'I'm coming anyways,' and I had to explain to her how that made me feel uncomfortable because I was pregnant (we lived in different states, thank god). A bit closer to my due date I had a lot of fear and anxiety, and I enrolled myself into therapy. Due to the work I was doing to prep for my first child, I told my mom that I needed space. I expressed how the pandemic affected me, and needed space (this only meant not talking every single day). I went to bed and woke up to an email she wrote me about how I'm selfish, I didn't let her zip up my wedding dress (I got married in 2018), and a few other things that supposedly caused her stress." "I didn't talk to my mom during the last two months of my pregnancy. I did let her know when I was in labor, but nothing more. I was so mad when the nurse told me my mom was on the phone (I was in labor, so I wasn't responding to her). I still have a rocky relationship with my mom, and I also still have the email she sent." —Anonymous 18."I have six younger siblings and would constantly have to watch them. My mom was gone for a couple of hours every day, and I would be stuck watching my siblings with no pay. The worst part is my mom would come home and yell at me for 'being lazy,' and she complained that the house wasn't clean enough. I was depressed growing up, but I was always too afraid to tell my mom about it. I hated that I never had a choice — I just had to go along with what my parents told me to do. Most of my childhood was taken away from me because of this." —Anonymous "After nine years of physical, mental, and emotional abuse at my mother's hand, she decided she didn't want me or my younger brother (7) anymore. She woke us up one morning and said that we were not going to school that day and to pack a bag (not explaining why). To say that we were confused is an understatement. Once our bags were packed she told us we were going to go live with our father (whom she had only allowed us to see a handful of times since their divorce six years prior). He was a virtual stranger to us. She marched us outside and made us sit on the curb to wait for him, turned around, went inside, and locked the gate and door behind her. She put us out like garbage." "Of course that was not the end of the story because she refused to relinquish control over us, even to this day. ALL my interactions with her leave me feeling like that 9-year-old little girl." —fierceogre39 Note: Some submissions have been edited for length and/or clarity. If you are concerned that a child is experiencing or may be in danger of abuse, you can call or text the National Child Abuse Hotline at 1-800-422-4453 ( service can be provided in over 140 languages. Solve the daily Crossword
