Gaming: Gambling Control Act.
Summary
Existing law regulates the collection of player fees in gambling establishments. Existing law prohibits a player fee from being calculated as a fraction or percentage of wagers made or winnings earned. Existing law requires the amount of fees to be charged for all wagers to be determined prior to the start of play of any hand or round, but authorizes a gambling establishment to waive collection of the fee or portion of the fee in any hand or round of play after the hand or round has begun pursuant to the published rules of the game and the notice provided to the public. Existing law also authorizes flat fees on each wager to be assessed at different collection rates, but specifies that no more than 5 collection rates may be established per table. This bill would delete the provisions authorizing a gambling establishment to waive the collection of fees and would also delete the provisions authorizing the assessment of flat fees for each wager. The bill would instead specify that in games that feature a player-dealer position, the player-dealer shall be required to pay a fee to the gambling establishment for each hand or round of play and each player shall be required to pay a fee from his or her own funds to the gambling establishment for each wager made in every hand or round of play. The bill would require all fees to be approved by the department, but would prohibit the department from approving a fee schedule for any player-dealer game unless the fee paid by each player on each wager is not less than 13 of the amount of the fee paid by the player-dealer in each hand or round of play.
Bill status
failed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2013
Committee Review
Jun 2014
Assembly Passage
May 2013
Senate Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 21, 2013
Last action Nov 30, 2014
Floor votes · Assembly May 9, 2013
How they voted
61–0
Passed · 3 other
Total votes 64
May 9, 2013
D
Democratic43
97% Yea
R
Republican21
90% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
15
Key actions
6
Committee
7
Amendments
2
Jun 19, 2014
Upper · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
upper
Jun 25, 2013
Upper · Passed
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
upper
Jun 17, 2013
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on G.O.
upper
May 24, 2013
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on G.O.
upper
May 23, 2013
Committee
Referred to Com. on G.O.
upper
May 9, 2013
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (61-0-3)
assembly
May 2, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (May 1).
lower
Apr 11, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: to consent calendar. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (April 10). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Mar 4, 2013
Committee
Referred to Com. on G.O.
lower
Feb 22, 2013
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 24.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Jimmy Gomez
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 820
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 820. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline