The proposed sweepstakes machine ban from Ald. Anthony Beale (9) would have allowed the city to fine businesses operating sweepstakes machines and order their removal from the premises. If the businesses ignored the order, fines would have increased and the city could have temporarily suspended their licenses. Subsequent offenses would have allowed for license revocation and machine confiscation.

The council voted 33-15 to defeat the ordinance.

The vote tally is below.

The Committee on License and Consumer Protection approved the measure (SO2026-0024076) in May over the objections of the Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection (BACP), which had concerns about the ability to effectively and equitably implement the law and its own enforcement capacity. It was deferred at the May council meeting. 

Related: Sweepstakes machine ban advances out of license and consumer protection committee over BACP objections   

The unregulated machines proliferated under Chicago’s previous prohibition on video gambling, as they exist in a legal gray area. 

Beale told his council colleagues that while some describe sweepstakes machines’ positions as a gray area, he saw them as clearly illegal. 

“The state is saying there are no legal sweepstakes machines, so there's no gray area that we're talking about. It's either you're legal or you're not,” Beale said. 

He said he welcomed the opportunity to be proven wrong and rhetorically suggested, as he has before, that sweepstakes machine operators should try their luck applying for a legal license with the state. 

Ald. Jason Ervin (28) said it wasn’t so simple. He claimed case law has deemed many of the machines legal amusement devices and only some as illegal, although he said he supported the removal of illegal ones. 

“There are devices that are legal under state law and under case law in the state of Illinois,” Ervin told the council. “Those devices need to be left alone, because they are legitimate.” 

Prior to the vote, Beale said the ban was also necessary to ensure the city maximizes its potential revenue from VGTs, which the city legalized under the 2026 budget. The council-driven 2026 budget partially relies on $6.8 million in city video gambling license revenue. 

Since the state began accepting applications from Chicago businesses interested in installing VGTs earlier this year, just a few of the nearly 300 applicants had been licensed as of last week, when the Illinois Gaming Board awarded the first state licenses to six Chicago businesses. 

On the city side, the measure (O2026-0024090) that aims to help the scores of businesses still waiting for state approval before seeking city licenses stalled for the second time before the council Wednesday. Ald. Bennett Lawson (44), who filed the notice of his intent to call for a vote, said he called it off to whip votes before a final vote is called.  

Related: License committee advances conditional approval process for city video gambling applicants  

BACP has opened its VGT license application process but has not issued any local licenses as of Wednesday. 

The gambling-related items were on the council agenda just days after a workforce development committee vote on a measure to repeal video gambling was postponed. Chair Mike Rodriguez (22) said a subject matter hearing will be held later this month instead. 

Related: Workforce development committee postpones vote on video gambling repeal 

At a press conference Wednesday, Mayor Brandon Johnson said there are real worries about what legal video gambling could mean for the workforce at the planned Bally’s Chicago casino, which is under construction. 

“I believe it's imperative that this committee goes through a healthy debate so that we don't, one, cause harm to the revenue that we are projecting from the casino, two, that we don't have a negative impact on the workforce and three, to make sure that we're just not in any way violating what the initial agreement called for,” Johnson said. 

Bally’s Chicago has said that the city’s legalization of video gambling not only will hurt its forthcoming riverfront casino’s bottom line, its staffing levels and local tax revenue but would put the city in breach of its host community agreement with the casino operator, threatening at least a contractual $4 million annual payment from Bally’s to the city.