State law brief
Colorado
Colorado enacted a simulated-device restriction with a product-specific boundary
Sources reviewed Next review due
- Status on record
- No explicit prohibition on record
- Sweeps Coins redemption
- Not blocked by any state rule on our records
- Operators accepting players
- 232 scored operators, per our availability records
Does Colorado's simulated-device statute decide every Gold Coin and Sweeps Coin product?
No. Colorado has enacted specific simulated-device language, but the statutory provisions describe device, location, consideration, and prize elements that must be matched to a product. The Attorney General opinion addressed sweepstakes cafes and was not a court ruling on every remote model.
What the law says
Colorado Revised Statutes section 18-10-102 defines gambling around risking money, credit, a deposit, or another thing of value for gain contingent on chance, a gambling device, or an event outside the participant's control. Article 10.5 specifically addresses simulated gambling devices and internet sweepstakes cafes. Section 18-10.5-103 addresses payment or consideration connected to use, admission, or a related purchase when an award of a prize is expressly or implicitly made, and it provides criminal and civil remedies. These provisions are more specific than a generic definition, but they do not automatically classify every remote website.
How it applies to dual-currency casinos
A 2014 Colorado Attorney General opinion concluded that the described sweepstakes-cafe activity was illegal while noting that Colorado courts had not directly decided the precise question. That opinion is agency guidance, not a court judgment or a named operator order. The 2018 Legislative Council publication is explanatory material, not enacted law. Whether a remote product is a covered device, whether a purchase supplies consideration, whether an AMOE changes the analysis, and whether Sweeps Coins are a prize or value remain product-specific.
Enforcement on file
A 2014 Colorado Attorney General opinion concluded that the described sweepstakes-cafe activity constituted illegal gambling. It was agency guidance, not an operator-specific charge or judgment. No newer named dual-currency operator action was located in the reviewed sources.
Still unresolved
Whether a particular remote platform is an electronic gaming machine or simulated gambling device under article 10.5, and how its purchase, AMOE, and redemption mechanics are characterized, remains unresolved.
Sources we read
Information, not legal advice. State law, its enforcement and each operator's own terms change; for a decision that matters, talk to a lawyer licensed in Colorado. 21+ only.