Permit revocations, failed renewals and voluntary closures have reduced the number of operating locations, although a pending lawsuit has temporarily blocked parts of the county’s amended ordinance.
The number of permitted game rooms operating in Lubbock County has fallen by nearly half since last summer as stricter regulations, permit actions and decisions by some owners to leave the business reshape the local industry.
As of June 16, the county had 23 game rooms with valid operating permits, compared with 45 in August 2025, according to records obtained from county officials. That is a decline of almost 49% in about 10 months.
The decrease does not mean that every missing location was permanently shut down through enforcement. County records identified 14 permits that had been revoked or were not renewed. Eight revocations occurred in 2026, while six other operators did not apply for annual renewal. Some owners closed voluntarily, and at least one said the closure was intended to be temporary.
Still, the figures show that the county’s regulatory system is having a substantial effect.
Lubbock County’s game-room permitting program took effect in May 2025 and was strengthened through an amended ordinance approved Feb. 23, 2026. The rules are administered by the county Tax Assessor-Collector’s Office, which maintains a game-room information and permitting page.
The ordinance requires operators and employees to obtain permits, undergo background checks and comply with safety and operating requirements. A commissioned peace officer must be present while a game room is open, and owners must provide information identifying who controls and works at the establishment.
The county also limits the number and location of new game rooms. Existing businesses were allowed to continue through grandfathering provisions, but the February amendments narrowed the circumstances under which that protection can remain in place.
A grandfathered business can lose its status if its ownership or location changes. A successful permit suspension or revocation can also eliminate grandfather protection, making it more difficult—or potentially impossible—for that location to reopen under a different owner.
One of the most consequential provisions requires a game room to remain in continuous operation. If a business closes for more than seven days, its owner must notify the county and provide a qualifying explanation. County officials said six permit revocations in 2026 involved businesses that were not continuously operating and had not provided the required notice.
The amendment also made game-room permits nontransferable. A person buying or taking over an existing business must apply for a new permit instead of using the previous owner’s authorization.
Officials have described those changes as a way to prevent operators from transferring nominal ownership or changing a business name to avoid enforcement. Operators, however, have argued that the restrictions interfere with legitimate business transactions and can cause a location to lose valuable grandfathered status.
The county’s authority comes from Chapter 234 of the Texas Local Government Code, which allows qualifying counties to regulate game rooms and makes knowingly operating in violation of an adopted regulation a criminal offense.
County officials reported that three people had been charged with misdemeanors specifically connected to the local ordinance as of June. A charge is an accusation and does not establish guilt. Other game-room-related cases have been filed under state gambling laws rather than the county ordinance.
The county’s approach is based partly on concerns about illegal gambling and criminal activity around some locations. Texas law generally prohibits gambling operations but contains a limited exception for certain amusement machines that award noncash prizes of restricted value. The distinction between a lawful amusement machine and an illegal gambling device depends on how the machine operates and what players receive, as outlined in Chapter 47 of the Texas Penal Code.
Game-room owners have maintained that compliant businesses can operate legally under that exception. County leaders and law-enforcement officials contend that some establishments disguise cash gambling as lawful amusement activity.
The most restrictive part of the February amendment originally limited game rooms to operating from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. KCBD reported that operating outside those hours could trigger automatic permit revocation.
El Fronteriso, a game room south of Lubbock, sued the county, claiming the restricted schedule exceeded the county’s legal authority and would severely damage the business.
In April, the parties agreed to a temporary court order allowing county game rooms to operate from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days a week while the lawsuit remains pending. The order also temporarily prevents the county from requiring operators to display a sign stating that gambling is illegal in Texas.
The remainder of the amended ordinance remains in effect. The temporary order is not a final decision on whether the disputed provisions are lawful.
El Fronteriso owner Eric Thompson closed his business in April amid separate property-forfeiture proceedings but said he intended to reopen in June. Misdemeanor cases filed against Thompson and an employee were later dismissed, while the property dispute remained pending. His situation illustrates why the decline from 45 to 23 should not be interpreted as 22 permanent shutdowns.
Operators can challenge a permit denial or revocation before a newly created citizen hearing board. The seven-member board hears cases in three-person panels and held its first meeting May 19. If the board upholds the county’s decision, an operator can appeal to a district court.
Although the ordinance allows financial penalties, county officials said no fines had been imposed as of June. Enforcement had instead focused on permit denials, revocations and renewals.
The permit count provides the clearest measure of the ordinance’s immediate impact: fewer businesses are currently authorized to operate. Whether that reduction produces a lasting decline in illegal gambling or related crime—and whether the county’s remaining restrictions survive the court challenge—will require more time and additional evidence.
