Vermont has no sweepstakes-casino ban. One major brand, Stake.us, excludes it by name - but the rest of our top-rated casinos are open here.
Vermont is the second-least-populous state in the country, behind only Wyoming, and that shows up in how a few operators treat it. No law restricts sweepstakes casinos here. No bill is pending. But Stake.us names Vermont directly in its own excluded-states list, alongside a longer roster of states it treats more cautiously than the law requires. That's the one real gap on this page, and we'd rather name it than let you find out after you've already tried to register.
Every other brand in our top tier serves Vermont without issue, which is more than some larger states on this list can say.
Is it legal to play sweepstakes casinos in Vermont?
Yes. Vermont has no statute or pending bill targeting the dual-currency sweepstakes model. Stake.us's exclusion is a brand-level business decision, not a reflection of Vermont law - nothing here requires it.
Which sweepstakes casinos accept Vermont players?
Here's our current top five, all confirmed open to Vermont in our cross-check against the full brand database:
| Rank | Casino | No-Deposit Offer | Why it's here |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Crown Coins Casino | 100,000 CC + 2 SC | Most Trusted by Players - 100,000+ Trustpilot reviews at 4.65 |
| 2 | WOW Vegas | 250,000 WC + 5 SC | Highest tested score - 28-provider game library |
| 3 | Zula Casino | 120,000 GC + 10 SC | 4.6 Trustpilot across 24,000+ reviews |
| 4 | McLuck | 7,500 GC + 2.5 SC | Best Redemption Terms - 75 SC cash floor |
| 5 | Sportzino | 170,000 GC + 7 SC | Best Casino + Sportsbook combo |
We earn commissions from some brands listed. Rankings come from our 12-criteria model - never from payment. Full disclosure →
See all 30 ranked casinos for the full ranked list if you're specifically looking for what Stake.us offers - crypto redemption and a live-dealer library - elsewhere on our rankings.
Why does Stake.us exclude Vermont?
We don't have a confirmed reason from the operator, and we're not going to speculate about one. Stake.us runs one of the more conservative state lists in our entire database - 18 states total, more than most brands we track - which suggests a broader risk posture rather than anything specific to Vermont. Small population may play a role in how worthwhile any single state is to actively defend, but that's our read, not a confirmed fact.
Vermont's regional neighbors don't offer a consistent pattern either, which rules out a simple New England explanation. Connecticut banned the sweepstakes model outright in October 2025, with civil and felony exposure attached. Rhode Island, like Vermont, remains legally open but has its own thinner-than-average brand roster for reasons that don't trace back to state law. New Hampshire and Massachusetts sit at opposite ends of their own spectrum - the former with no restriction activity we found, the latter with a bill that missed its 2026 committee deadline. New England is genuinely mixed on this question, not uniformly anything.
Is Vermont likely to see a bill of its own?
Nothing on file suggests one is coming. Vermont hasn't produced a sweepstakes-specific bill, an attorney general enforcement campaign, or a gaming-commission statement the way several New England neighbors have this session. Small-population states sometimes move later than larger ones simply because fewer resources go into drafting gaming legislation in the first place - that's a resourcing observation, not a prediction, and we'd rather flag the absence of activity honestly than guess at a timeline nobody has published.