Hawaii / Legal position gauge

Elevated risk

Editorial assessment from Hawaii-specific research—not legal approval. Licensed Hawaii counsel must review before any deployment decision.

Why this rating?

Hawaii has never authorized a commercial casino or a state lottery. Chapter 712, Part III is a closed criminal code: gambling is staking or risking something of value upon a contest of chance (outcome depends in a material degree upon chance, even if skill is also a factor) or a future contingent event not under the person’s control or influence (HRS § 712-1220). The 1973 Legislature stated that gambling in all its aspects is prohibited except the narrow social-gambling affirmative defense—and it added the place ban specifically “to prevent the intrusion of hotel and casino type operations into this State” (§ 712-1231 commentary; Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 806 (1973)). Social gambling cannot occur in any business establishment and forbids any house or premises profit. A federal court applying Hawaii law held Winner’z Zone Products Direct Sweepstakes terminals were gambling devices because customers staked value for a cash prize, not coupons (PJY Enterprises). Attorney General Opinion 16-1 treats paid daily fantasy sports as gambling under both the material-degree and future-contingent-event clauses (Att. Gen. Op. 16-1). Promoting gambling is now a class B or class C felony (Act 111 (2022)); 2024 tightened property-owner “advance gambling” liability; 2026 legislation expressly targets “sweepstakes gambling machines.” No reported Hawaii appellate decision has tested mandatory pre-reveal with exact monetary disclosure, genuine accept/decline, and no charge on decline. That untested timing distinction, plus the absence of any case against a full-pool reveal with mandatory pre-reveal, drops the rating from high risk to elevated. PJY tested a pay-then-reveal sweepstakes terminal, not this architecture. The closed exception list, felony promotion, and 2026 sweepstakes-machine legislation keep the rating out of the moderate band.

This gauge also weighs that we identified no charges and no decided case in Hawaii against a game that used a full-pool reveal together with mandatory pre-reveal. Banilla, Torch, and JD Prime used an optional viewer of the next assigned result after money was already on the machine. Café terminals paid first, then revealed. Those fact patterns are not this architecture and do not, by themselves, set the rating.

Scale: High risk → Elevated risk → Moderate risk → Unsettled → Moderately favorable → Favorable → Strong position. These are editorial categories, not probabilities of approval or findings of legality.

Source review date: . Has this exact model been tested? · Counsel checklist · Authorities

NCG GAMESHawaii position brief
Hawaii  /  Position brief

“Hotel and casino type operations”
were what the 1973 ban was written to stop.

When the Legislature rewrote Part III, it said gambling in all its aspects is prohibited except social gambling—and it added the place ban specifically “to prevent the intrusion of hotel and casino type operations into this State.” Social gambling requires equal terms, no house or premises profit, and no play in any business establishment. Honolulu’s Winner’z Zone sweepstakes terminals were held to be gambling devices under § 712-1220 because customers staked value for a cash prize, not coupons. The NCG position is that those machines charged first and revealed later—a sequence this architecture does not use. Hawaii has never authorized a commercial casino or a state lottery.

Has this been tested? What remains for Hawaii counsel
Working position

This brief analyzes the proposed transaction architecture under current Hawaii law. It is not a finding of legality, Attorney General approval, or authorization to operate cash-prize devices. Hawaii has no commercial-casino, lottery, pari-mutuel, or charitable-gaming license path in Part III. The defined exception is social gambling. Intra-state gambling ships are a separate class C felony; only transit gambling to first entry or from final exit is carved out.

Hawaii legal starting point

Part III criminalizes participating in, promoting, and possessing devices used in gambling that is not social gambling. There is no amusement-cash or commercial-casino exclusion.

HRS § 712-1220

Stake or risk upon chance—or a future event you do not control

A person engages in gambling if the person “stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence,” upon an agreement that someone will receive something of value if a certain outcome occurs. A contest of chance is any contest, game, scheme, or device whose outcome “depends in a material degree upon an element of chance, notwithstanding that skill of the contestants may also be a factor.” Ordinary contracts, securities, commodities, and insurance are carved out. Skill does not, by itself, take paid prize play outside the definition.

HRS § 712-1226

Devices and amusement: cash still counts

A gambling device is any machine or equipment “used or usable in the playing phases of any gambling activity,” including a person playing a machine. Possession, manufacture, sale, transport, or placement of a device knowing it will advance non-social gambling is a misdemeanor. Act 201 (1973) removed “a privilege of playing … without charge” from “something of value,” so a free replay is no longer the prize the older pinball cases condemned. Cash, tokens exchangeable for money or property, credits, and redeemable value remain “something of value.” There is no cash-prize amusement exemption.

HRS § 712-1231

The only defined exception is social gambling

Social gambling is an affirmative defense the defendant must prove by a preponderance. All six conditions must be present: equal terms; no player profit other than personal winnings; no other person or entity receives value from any source, including premises; no play in a hotel, bar, restaurant, “or any business establishment of any kind,” or in public places; no minors; not bookmaking. The defense is available on gambling, records, and device charges—not on promoting gambling in the first degree. It is not a commercial operating license.

Central timing question: § 712-1220 asks whether the player stakes or risks value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the player’s control. The NCG position is that at Accept the accepted transaction’s monetary result is already fixed and disclosed—so the player is not risking value upon an unresolved outcome. Hawaii has not held whether that sequence escapes the definition. Winner’z Zone terminals were treated as devices used to stake value for a potential cash prize when customers paid into a sweepstakes play first. Opinion 16-1 applied both the material-degree clause and the future-contingent-event clause to paid contests whose prizes were posted in advance.

Safeguard 1

Exact cost and result are known before acceptance.

Before the player becomes financially committed to a transaction, the system discloses the exact transaction cost and exact monetary result. Accept processes only those disclosed terms.

Why this matters under Hawaii law

§ 712-1220 requires staking or risking value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event. If the economic outcome is already fixed and disclosed before Accept, the strongest NCG argument is that the player is not risking value upon an unresolved outcome—they are accepting a disclosed, predetermined transaction whose result is already known.

Contrary authority

Opinion 16-1 treated posted prize tables as confirming—not defeating—the “something of value on a certain outcome” element. Winner’z Zone customers could see that cash prizes existed; they still staked before the particular result was known. Prosecutors will argue casino-style presentation still frames each session as a contest whose benefit depends on chance or on which offer the pool delivers next.

Implementation risk

Weakening factors: showing cost/result after partial payment, allowing acceptance before disclosure renders, or mismatch between displayed and settled amounts. Any of those would collapse the timing distinction from PJY’s pay-then-play sweepstakes terminals.

HRS § 712-1220Timing of the stake is critical
Safeguard 2

Viewing the offer does not require payment.

The player may see the disclosed offer—including zero or negative-net outcomes—without paying for that transaction. Declining imposes no charge for that offer.

Why timing of consideration matters

PJY involved payment into sweepstakes play before the particular cash result was known. NCG separates inspection from commitment: no consideration moves for a declined offer. That is the factual distinction those opinions did not have.

Contrary authority

Prosecutors may argue the player purchased access to a sequence of offers by earlier deposit, and that each Accept still “risks” credits. PJY disregarded unused coupons when the terminals were used for the cash prize. Social gambling’s no-profit rules do not create a free-look safe harbor for a commercial operator.

PJY EnterprisesNo payment on decline
Safeguard 3

Monetary results and reel positions are predetermined.

Monetary outcomes are fixed before acceptance within a finite predetermined pool. Reels, symbols, and entertainment layers cannot modify the disclosed monetary result after acceptance.

Distinction from Hawaii authorities

Predetermination is not, standing alone, a Hawaii defense. A lottery is defined by payment for chances whose winners are designated by a chance-based method—not by live dice. Opinion 16-1 treated detailed, pre-posted prize structures as satisfying the “something of value … in the event of a certain outcome” clause. NCG’s distinction is not predetermination alone—it is predetermination plus disclosure before financial commitment plus a free decline.

Device and reel presentation

§ 712-1226 reaches any device “used or usable” in the playing phases of gambling activity. Casino-style cabinets with bill acceptors will be investigated as devices first. The 2026 Legislature’s findings on “fish games” and “sweepstakes gambling machines” describe devices “frequently misrepresented as games of skill or amusement” that award value based on chance or a mix of chance and skill. That bill is not current law; it is evidence of enforcement posture.

Amusement history is a trap

Uyehara and Prevo show how long Hawaii has treated prize amusement machines as gambling. The 1973 amendment saved free replays only. It did not authorize cash redemption or operator-assigned prize pools.

HRS § 712-1226Prevo
Safeguard 4

The player may stop and redeem—including cents.

Eligible remaining credits may be redeemed without further play. Redemption includes fractional dollars; balances are not rounded down to trap value in the machine.

Effect on Hawaii analysis

Full redemption supports the argument that only accepted transactions consume value and that the player retains a genuine exit. It may mitigate “trapped balance” or forced-continued-play theories. Cash-out on Winner’z Zone terminals did not prevent the devices from being classified as gambling devices.

Limitation

Redemption does not cure an otherwise unlawful gambling transaction. Devices, proceeds, and facilitating property may be pursued under chapter 712A civil forfeiture. The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court’s 2021 Winner’z Zone forfeiture opinion required return of machines because police and prosecutors missed statutory deadlines—it was not a holding that the terminals were lawful (Alm).

ILLUSTRATIVE CASH-OUT

$22.00 ticket+$0.67 cents→$0.00 remaining
Alm / ch. 712AExit rights ≠ legality
Safeguard 5

Software enforces non-bypassable rules.

Mandatory pre-reveal, accept/decline, no post-acceptance RNG, predetermined reels, and redemption rules are architecturally enforced—not merely published as disclaimers.

Why enforcement matters in Hawaii

Hawaii sweepstakes and device cases turn on actual mechanics and how customers used the system—not marketing labels. PJY used website-registration statistics to show coupons were a pretext. Opinion 16-1 looked through “entry fee” wording. Software enforcement is how the timing distinction can be proved if charges are brought under §§ 712-1221–1226 or civilly under chapter 712A.

Implementation risks

Alternate clients, debug modes, stale-offer acceptance, or server paths that charge on preview would collapse the distinction from Winner’z Zone pay-then-play terminals and expose operators to class B or C felony promotion (Act 111, 2022), misdemeanor gambling and device possession, records offenses, property-owner “advance gambling” liability (Act 249, 2024, in effect until July 1, 2029), seizure, and forfeiture. Casino-style presentation without the enforced accept/decline sequence is the fact pattern Honolulu has already treated as a gambling device.

HRS §§ 712-1221, 712-1222Engineering ≠ statutory permission
Required analysis

Has this exact model been tested in Hawaii?

We did not identify a reported appellate decision in Hawaii directly testing this complete transaction architecture—mandatory pre-reveal, exact monetary disclosure before financial commitment, genuine accept/decline with no charge on decline, no post-acceptance randomness, finite predetermined pool, predetermined reels, software-enforced safeguards, and cent-level redemption.

What Hawaii courts and agencies have addressed—and how those systems differ

  • PJY Enterprises, LLC v. Kaneshiro, 679 F. App’x 621 (9th Cir. 2017) (mem.) — Unpublished (9th Cir. R. 36-3). Affirmed summary judgment that Products Direct Sweepstakes terminals seized from Honolulu arcades (Winner’z Zone / Lucky Zone) were “gambling devices” under § 712-1220. Nearly unused discount coupons showed customers “staked or risked something of value” for the potential cash prize, not merchandise. District court: No. 1:12-cv-00577-LEK-RLP (D. Haw. Apr. 30, 2014). Partially analogous on electronic cash-prize cabinets marketed as sweepstakes. Materially distinguishable because consideration occurred before the particular result was known and there was no accept/decline with zero cost on rejection of a disclosed result. Not binding as unpublished Ninth Circuit memorandum, but it is the closest application of Hawaii’s definition to sweepstakes terminals.
  • Alm v. Eleven (11) Products Direct Sweepstakes Machines, 150 Hawaiʻi 329 (2021) — Published. Ordered return of seventy-seven PDS machines because HPD and prosecutors missed chapter 712A forfeiture deadlines. The opinion recites that HPD seized the machines as alleged violations of promoting gambling and device possession, and notes the federal summary-judgment finding that the machines were gambling devices. Not applicable as a merits test of NCG architecture; it is a forfeiture-procedure holding, not a finding of legality.
  • Att. Gen. Op. No. 16-1 (Jan. 2016) — Daily fantasy sports are gambling under the plain meaning of § 712-1220: a paid “entry fee” is a stake; contests are contests of chance and involve future contingent events not under players’ control; posted prize tables confirm the prize element. Not binding precedent. Partially analogous on material-degree chance, future-contingent-event language, and looking through labels. Materially distinguishable: DFS outcomes turn on later sporting events; NCG discloses the monetary result before Accept.
  • State v. Prevo, 44 Haw. 665, 361 P.2d 1044 (1961) — “Fascination” prize-coupon amusement held gambling under R.L.H. 1955 § 288-4. The Court said that older statute drew no chance/skill distinction if value was staked on the outcome, and traced the 1893 re-enactment to the overthrow-era reaction against the monarchy’s lottery bill. Partially analogous on commercial prize amusement and Hawaii’s historical policy against gaming houses. Materially distinguishable: pre-Code statute; 1973 amendments changed “something of value” and introduced the social-gambling defense and the material-degree definition.
  • Territory v. Uyehara, 42 Haw. 184 (1957); Territory v. Naumu, 43 Haw. 66 (1958) — Pinball free games treated as “anything of value” under the old gambling statute (lottery count failed in Uyehara). Not applicable to NCG cash redemption; useful only to show that Act 201 (1973) later removed free replay from “something of value” and did not authorize cash prizes.
  • State v. Allen, 2 Haw. App. 606, 638 P.2d 338 (1981) — Social gambling is an affirmative defense the defendant must prove, including that no non-player received anything of value. Not applicable to NCG architecture; confirms the defense is unavailable if a house, landlord, or other entity profits.
  • 92 Hawaiʻi 98, 987 P.2d 996 (App. 1999) — Official annotation to § 712-1221: social-gambling defense is not available in a first-degree promoting prosecution under § 712-1221(1)(c). Not applicable as an NCG test; relevant to charging exposure if receipts exceed $1,000 in seven days.

Enforcement and legislative activity (not judicial approval)

Honolulu Police and prosecutors seized Winner’z Zone PDS machines beginning in 2012 and issued 2014 cease-and-desist orders to adult video-game parlors over sweepstakes, cash-point, and even coin-pusher machines. Act 111 (2022) raised promoting gambling in the first degree to a class B felony (recklessness) and second degree to a class C felony (negligence), citing illegal gambling houses. Act 249 (2024) amended “advance gambling activity” so a person with substantial control over premises who knows of gambling and permits it to occur or continue can be liable (sunsets July 1, 2029). Senate Bill 3281 (2026) would create a specific offense of promoting an “illegal electronic gambling device,” defined to include fish tables and sweepstakes gaming machines; it is proposed legislation, not current law. Lottery, single-casino, and sports-wagering bills continue to be introduced and have not been enacted as of this review. We did not identify an Attorney General opinion specifically approving mandatory pre-reveal, accept/decline, cash-redemption terminals. Absence of a decision testing this complete architecture is not a judicial determination of legality.

Critical distinction

“No reported Hawaii decision directly testing this architecture” is materially different from “A Hawaii court has ruled this architecture legal.” Neither statement has been found true here. PJY is the closest analogue applying Hawaii law—and it is adverse on pay-then-play sweepstakes cabinets. The Hawaiʻi Constitution does not contain a lottery clause; the ban is statutory, which is why legalization bills recur. Recurring bills are not authorizations.

No direct Hawaii appellate precedent identified
Strongest contrary arguments

What Hawaii prosecutors and the Attorney General could argue.

1. Future contingent event—Opinion 16-1’s second clause

Even if each accepted transaction’s result is fixed, prosecutors may argue chance exists as to which offer appears next, and that sequence is a “future contingent event not under [the player’s] control or influence.” Opinion 16-1 used that clause independently of the material-degree test. It is not binding precedent, but it is the language county prosecutors will quote.

2. PJY already involved sweepstakes cabinets and a cash prize

A federal court applying § 712-1220 treated payment into electronic sweepstakes play for a potential cash prize as gambling, and looked through unused coupons. Counsel must explain—with facts, not labels—why disclosure before commitment and a free decline are legally different from that pay-then-play pattern.

3. Lottery definition fits a finite prize pool

A lottery is payment for chances, designation of winners by drawing or another chance-based method, and something of value to holders. A predetermined pool can be charged as that scheme even if no live ball is drawn. Promoting a lottery that takes in more than $1,000 in seven days is first-degree promoting—a class B felony.

4. Social gambling is unavailable—and was written to block casino operations

§ 712-1231 requires equal player-versus-player terms, zero house or premises profit, and no play in any business establishment. The 1973 committee report said the place ban was to prevent “hotel and casino type operations.” The defense is the defendant’s burden, is unavailable on § 712-1221, and cannot be a retail cash-device theory.

5. Promotion is now a felony; devices and premises are separately charged

§ 712-1221 (class B felony), § 712-1222 (class C felony, negligence), § 712-1222.5 (gambling ships), § 712-1223 (misdemeanor gambling), §§ 712-1224–1225 (records), § 712-1226 (device possession), and chapter 712A forfeiture apply if the activity is unlawful gambling. Act 249 (2024) reaches knowing premises controllers who permit the activity to continue.

6. Session-wide staking and credit balances

Money inserted upfront creates a continuing credit balance. Each Accept may be characterized as risking that balance across a session—the structure PJY treated as staking for a cash prize, not inspecting disclosed sales.

7. Current legislative and enforcement posture

Hawaii remains one of the two U.S. states with no authorized commercial gambling. 2026 findings describe sweepstakes machines as illegal devices “misrepresented as games of skill or amusement.” Slot-like cabinets will invite the same investigative path even if backend logic differs. Recurring casino and lottery bills confirm the activity is still unauthorized.

NCG factual responses and residual risk

Responses: at acceptance the monetary result is fixed and known; declines cost nothing; no post-acceptance RNG; PJY involved payment-before-outcome mechanics; social gambling is not the NCG theory—the timing of § 712-1220 “upon the outcome” is. Residual risk: a closed statutory exception, federal application of Hawaii law to sweepstakes cabinets, dual material-degree and future-contingent-event definition, felony promotion, device possession, premises liability, and an active anti-sweepstakes legislative posture remain material pending Hawaii counsel review. The timing distinction is supportable; it is not settled. The honest gauge is high risk.

PJY EnterprisesAdverse authority must be addressed, not dismissed
Complete transaction analysis

Chronology: when is the player financially committed?

“The player accepts or declines a fully disclosed, predetermined transaction. No later random event alters the monetary result. The legal question is whether Hawaii treats that sequence as staking or risking value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event under § 712-1220—or as something materially different from the pay-then-play sweepstakes cabinets in PJY Enterprises.”

This is the position to test—not a Hawaii legal conclusion. Compare to Winner’z Zone (pay into sweepstakes play, then use the terminal for a potential cash prize) and Opinion 16-1 (posted prizes plus an uncontrolled future event still treated as gambling).

  1. 1 / POOLFinite pool predetermined
  2. 2 / REQUESTPlayer requests next offer
  3. 3 / REVEALExact result disclosed
  4. 4 / TERMSCost and result both known
  5. 5 / CHOICEAccept or decline
  6. 6 / SETTLENo post-accept RNG
  7. 7 / EXITRedeem remaining cents
Authorities

Primary Hawaii sources.

Verified . Binding statutes and Hawaiʻi appellate decisions distinguished from unpublished federal memorandum dispositions, Attorney General opinions, and pending bills.

  1. [1]
    Hawaii statute · definitions

    HRS § 712-1220 ↗

    Definitions for Part III: advance gambling activity; contest of chance (material degree, skill may also be a factor); gambling (stake or risk upon contest of chance or future contingent event not under the person’s control); gambling device; lottery; something of value. Official legislature text, including Act 249 (2024) premises language (repeal and reenactment July 1, 2029) and the annotation of Att. Gen. Op. 16-1.

  2. [2]
    Hawaii statute · social gambling

    HRS § 712-1231 ↗

    Social gambling defined (six conditions); affirmative defense on §§ 712-1223 to 712-1226; not an element of the prosecution’s prima facie case. Official commentary quotes Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 806 (1973): place ban intended “to prevent the intrusion of hotel and casino type operations into this State.”

  3. [3]
    Hawaii statute · promotion

    HRS § 712-1221 ↗ · § 712-1222 ↗

    Promoting gambling in the first degree—class B felony (reckless; bookmaking, lottery/mutuel records, or more than $1,000 played in seven days). Promoting in the second degree—class C felony (negligent advancing or profiting). Elevated by Act 111, Session Laws 2022.

  4. [4]
    Hawaii statute · gambling

    HRS § 712-1223 ↗

    Gambling—knowingly participating in any gambling activity—is a misdemeanor. Official commentary (Act 201, 1973): gambling in all its aspects is prohibited except the limited case of social gambling.

  5. [5]
    Hawaii statute · devices

    HRS § 712-1226 ↗

    Possession of a gambling device—manufacture, sale, transport, place, or possess knowing it will be used to advance gambling that is not social gambling. Misdemeanor. Commentary records the 1973 removal of free-replay from “something of value.”

  6. [6]
    Hawaii Attorney General · advisory

    Att. Gen. Op. No. 16-1 ↗

    January 2016. Daily fantasy sports are gambling under § 712-1220: entry fees are stakes; contests are contests of chance and future contingent events not under players’ control; posted prizes satisfy the prize element. Official AG PDF. Not binding precedent and not an opinion on pre-reveal accept/decline terminals.

  7. [7]
    U.S. Court of Appeals · unpublished memorandum

    PJY Enterprises, LLC v. Kaneshiro, 679 F. App’x 621 ↗

    (9th Cir. Mar. 9, 2017) (mem.). PDS terminals held gambling devices under § 712-1220; coupons were pretext for staking a cash prize. Not precedent under 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Affirmed D. Haw. No. 1:12-cv-00577-LEK-RLP (Apr. 30, 2014).

  8. [8]
    Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · published

    State v. Allen, 2 Haw. App. 606 ↗

    638 P.2d 338 (1981). Social gambling is an affirmative defense; defendants failed to prove that no non-player received anything of value.

  9. [9]
    Hawaiʻi Supreme Court · published / forfeiture procedure

    Alm v. Eleven Products Direct Sweepstakes Machines, 150 Haw. 329 ↗

    (2021). HRS §§ 712A-7 and 712A-9 deadlines required return of seized PDS machines. Not a holding that the machines were lawful. Official court PDF.

  10. [10]
    Hawaiʻi Supreme Court · historical / pre-Code

    State v. Prevo, 44 Haw. 665 ↗

    361 P.2d 1044 (1961). “Fascination” prize coupons held gambling under R.L.H. 1955 § 288-4; older statute drew no chance/skill line if value was staked. Traces 1893 Act 21 to the reaction against the monarchy’s lottery bill. Current chance test is the 1972–73 Code, not this opinion’s skill discussion.

  11. [11]
    Hawaii statute · ships

    HRS § 712-1222.5 ↗

    Promoting gambling aboard ships—class C felony. Exception only for gambling during travel to first entry into, or from final exit from, state waters. Enacted 1990 to block intra-state gambling junkets.

  12. [12]
    Hawaii statute · records

    HRS § 712-1224 ↗

    Possession of gambling records in the first degree—class C felony—for bookmaking records over five bets / $500 or lottery/mutuel records over 100 plays or a play exceeding $5,000. See also § 712-1225 (second degree, misdemeanor) and § 712-1227 (defense).

  13. [13]
    Proposed legislation · not current law

    S.B. 3281, S.D. 1 (2026) ↗

    Would create the offense of promoting an illegal electronic gambling device and define that term to include fish games and sweepstakes gaming machines. Legislative findings, not an enacted statute. Cited for enforcement climate only.

  14. [14]
    Hawaiʻi Supreme Court · historical / pre-Code

    Territory v. Uyehara, 42 Haw. 184 ↗

    (1957). Pinball free games held “anything of value” under the old gambling statute. Superseded in part by Act 201 (1973) as to free replay only. See also Territory v. Naumu, 43 Haw. 66 (1958).

Disclaimer: This brief is research and issue-spotting for professional discussion—not legal advice, Attorney General approval, legislative authorization, or permission to operate. Hawaii has no commercial-casino or state-lottery statute. No Hawaii Attorney General opinion specifically addressing mandatory pre-reveal NCG architecture was identified. PJY Enterprises is an unpublished Ninth Circuit memorandum. Alm is a forfeiture-deadline decision. Prevo and Uyehara apply the pre-1972 statute. Pending 2026 bills are not law. Hawaii counsel should verify all citations, effective dates, Act 249’s 2029 sunset, county enforcement practices, and the actual deployed software before any compliance representation.