A rapid seizure of newly installed “Racing on Demand” betting machines at Santa Anita Park has opened a fresh legal and political front in California’s long-running gambling disputes, with tribal exclusivity again looming large over the outcome.
Santa Anita installed 26 terminals on 15 January, only for the California Department of Justice to confiscate the machines and their contents two days later. The track responded almost immediately by filing suit in Los Angeles Superior Court against Attorney General Rob Bonta and the DOJ, seeking the return of the equipment and challenging the legality of the seizure.
Dispute centres on legality of past-race wagering
According to the complaint, Santa Anita had been in ongoing discussions with the California Horse Racing Board and DOJ since 2024 over offering wagers on past races alongside live betting. While live bets were approved that year, talks over historical-race wagering continued throughout 2025 without a definitive ruling.
The track claims it repeatedly notified regulators of its intent to launch the machines, including twice in December, and says neither the CHRB nor the attorney general’s office disputed its legal analysis prior to the seizure.
The machines offered US$1 pari-mutuel “3X3” wagers, requiring players to pick three trifectas based on previously run races at non-California tracks. The format resembles historical horse racing (HHR), which is permitted in several other US states but remains legally sensitive in California.
Unions criticise enforcement approach
Santa Anita says the seizure was carried out without prior notice or a warrant, involving more than 20 DOJ personnel and a U-Haul truck. It claims documentation was only provided after the fact, and no receipt was issued for confiscated cash.
Four labour unions, including the Service Employees International Union and the Teamsters, publicly criticised the action in a joint letter to Bonta, describing it as reckless and damaging to an industry they say generates more than US$1.7bn annually for the state. Bonta’s office declined to comment.
The CHRB has since stated it was aware of the machines but did not authorise their installation and will cooperate with the DOJ investigation.
Tribal exclusivity looms in background
The seizure lands in a politically charged environment. Since 2000, California tribes have held exclusive rights to Class III gaming, including casino-style games and sports betting. Tribal groups have aggressively defended that position, defeating a series of perceived encroachments in recent years, most notably the industry-backed Proposition 27 online sports betting initiative in 2022.
Bonta, who faces re-election in 2026, has drawn scrutiny for actions aligned with tribal priorities, including rule changes affecting card rooms, an opinion declaring most daily fantasy sports illegal, and a legislated ban on sweepstakes gaming. He has also received significant campaign contributions from tribal gaming interests, alongside donations from the same unions now opposing the Santa Anita seizure.
Santa Anita argues its technology falls outside Class III gaming because it is pari-mutuel and peer-to-peer. The machines were reportedly engineered with involvement from AmTote International and 1/ST Racing, the latter owned by The Stronach Group, which also owns Santa Anita.
Prediction markets add further pressure
The dispute unfolds as California tribes confront a broader challenge from prediction markets. Platforms such as Kalshiand Polymarket, alongside offerings from major sportsbooks and DFS operators, have entered the state relying on federal pre-emption arguments.
Tribal legal efforts have had mixed success. While a federal court recently sided with Kalshi in a California case, tribal coalitions have gained traction in other jurisdictions through coordinated legal briefs. The debate has intensified as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has taken a more permissive stance toward prediction markets.
So whats the point?
For Santa Anita, the lawsuit is a test of whether pari-mutuel innovation can survive in a state where tribal exclusivity has repeatedly prevailed. Even if the track prevails on technical grounds, the political headwinds are substantial.
For California tribes, the case reinforces a broader defensive posture against perceived backdoor expansions of gambling, from historical-race machines to prediction markets. Their recent track record suggests regulators and courts remain sensitive to those concerns.
More broadly, the seizure underscores how difficult it remains to introduce new wagering formats in California. In a market defined by exclusivity, even carefully engineered products can trigger swift enforcement and become entangled in far larger battles over who controls the future of gambling in the state.