Online Casino Class Action Lawsuits: Sweepstakes and Sports Betting

Online casino class action lawsuits have produced a landmark $24.9 million jury verdict, more than $651 million in prior settlements, and dozens of pending cases against social casino apps, sweepstakes platforms, sports betting operators, and the tech companies that host their games. The core legal question in most of these suits is the same: whether selling virtual chips or coins for casino-style play amounts to illegal gambling under state law. Courts in several states have said yes, and that answer is now driving one of the most active areas of consumer class action work in the country.

The First Class Action Verdict Against a Social Casino

On February 7, 2025, an eight-person jury in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington awarded roughly $24.9 million to a class of Washington consumers who had spent money on High 5 Games’ apps, High 5 Casino and High 5 Vegas. The case, Larsen v. PTT, LLC et al. (Case No. 3:18-cv-05275), covered Washington players who purchased virtual casino chips at any point after April 9, 2014.¹

The award broke down to more than $17.7 million in actual damages and about $7.1 million in enhanced damages under Washington law. Named plaintiff Rick Larsen was individually awarded about $11,653.¹ The verdict followed a June 2024 summary judgment ruling by Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright, who found the apps were illegal gambling games under Washington law and that High 5 Games was liable. With liability settled, the four-day trial focused only on how much the company owed.²

Plaintiffs argued High 5 Games marketed its apps as “free-to-play” but built them so players had to buy more chips with real money when their free chips ran out. The complaint also alleged the company deliberately targeted heavy spenders it identified internally as “whales,” an industry term for high-stakes, often addicted players.³ High 5 Games countered that players could use free coins provided at registration and through promotions without ever spending money. The company declined to comment on the verdict.²

Earlier Social Casino Settlements and the Washington Theory

The legal foundation for most social casino suits is Washington’s Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act, which lets people who lose money gambling sue to get it back. The statute became a plaintiffs’ weapon after the Ninth Circuit’s 2018 decision in Kater v. Churchill Downs Inc. (886 F.3d 784), which held that virtual chips in the Big Fish Casino app were a “thing of value” because they let players keep playing. When free chips ran out, buying more became functionally equivalent to a wager.⁴

Kater itself settled for $155 million, covering players of Big Fish Casino, Jackpot Magic Slots, and Epic Diamond Slots.⁵ Plaintiffs’ firm Edelson PC puts the total of social casino settlements secured before the High 5 Games verdict at more than $651 million.⁶

SciPlay Corporation reached a settlement covering players of Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish Casino, Hot Shot Casino, Quick Hit Slots, 88 Fortunes, Monopoly Slots, and Bingo Showdown. The case, Timothy Sornberger et al. v. SciPlay Corporation et al. (Case No. 33-CV-2025-900003.00, Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama), set up a cash fund of up to $5 million plus virtual currency for qualifying class members.⁷

Eligible class members were people who spent money on the covered apps in Alabama, Ohio, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Tennessee, or Kentucky during state-specific date windows reaching back to December 2019. The default payout was in virtual game currency. Class members who filed an election form by November 4, 2025 could instead take cash equal to 25 percent of what they spent, minus fees and expenses. If total cash claims exceeded the $5 million cap, the shortfall would be paid in virtual currency. A fairness hearing was held November 26, 2025, and payments began March 6, 2026.⁸

Sweepstakes Casino Lawsuits

A separate wave of cases targets “sweepstakes casinos” like Chumba Casino, Stake.us, Fortune Coins, and others that use a dual-currency model. Players buy “gold coins” and receive “sweeps coins” as a bonus; sweeps coins can be redeemed for cash prizes. Operators call this a legal promotional sweepstakes. Plaintiffs and regulators call it gambling in disguise.

Beasley Allen’s Multi-State Filings

Alabama-based firm Beasley Allen has filed class actions against Modo Casino, Fortune Coins, Stake.us, High 5 Casino, and Chumba Casino in Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Ohio, and Oregon, alleging the platforms are unlicensed online casinos that use virtual currency to sidestep state gambling laws. The suits seek recovery under state loss-recovery statutes.⁹ In May 2025, the firm filed a separate class action against Sweepsteaks Limited, Stake.us’s operator, for two Alabama plaintiffs who alleged the platform offered more than 200 games of chance with cash or cryptocurrency prizes and failed to restrict Alabama access.¹⁰

Baltimore’s Suit Against Six Operators

On February 20, 2026, the City of Baltimore sued six social casino operators in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City: VGW Holdings (Chumba Casino, LuckyLand Slots), B2Services (McLuck), Yellow Social Interactive Limited (Pulsz Casino), Sweepsteaks Limited (Stake.us), High 5 Entertainment, and Blazesoft Ltd. (Fortune Coins). The complaint alleges the platforms constitute illegal gambling under Maryland law, violate Baltimore’s Consumer Protection Ordinance through deceptive marketing, target minors, lack adequate age verification, and operate without responsible-gambling safeguards. The city is seeking civil penalties, injunctive relief, consumer restitution, and disgorgement of profits.¹¹

Chumba Casino and VGW in New Jersey

In August 2025, a class action was filed against VGW and its affiliates (Chumba Casino and LuckyLand Slots) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Case No. 1:25cv15114). The complaint alleges VGW runs an illegal gambling business under both federal and New Jersey law and deceptively markets its platforms as “free-to-play” while allowing cash redemption. The plaintiffs argue that because the underlying business is illegal, VGW’s terms of service and arbitration clauses can’t be enforced.¹²

Stake.us, Drake, and a RICO Claim

On December 31, 2025, plaintiffs Tiffany Hines and LaShawnna Ridley filed a class action in the Eastern District of Virginia against Stake.us, rapper Drake (Aubrey Drake Graham), YouTuber Adin Ross, and associate George Nguyen (Ridley and Hines v. Sweepsteaks Ltd. et al., Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02511). The complaint brings federal RICO claims, a RICO conspiracy count, and Virginia Consumer Protection Act claims, alleging a coordinated illegal gambling enterprise and that Stake.us served as a conduit to funnel money to Nguyen to inflate Drake’s music streaming numbers through bots. The plaintiffs seek $5 million and a jury trial. As of early January 2026, the defendants had been ordered to respond within 21 days.¹³

Los Angeles Takes On Stake.us

On September 4, 2025, Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto sued Stake.us and numerous affiliated companies and individuals (LASC Case No. 25STCV25304). The complaint alleges Stake.us runs an unlicensed illegal gambling enterprise in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. The City Attorney called Stake.us “a rogue and real money gambling racket” and noted the global Stake operation earned about $4.7 billion in gross revenue in 2024. The suit seeks to permanently shut down Stake.us’s California operations, recover resident losses, and impose civil penalties.¹⁴

Suits Against Apple, Google, and Meta

Plaintiffs have also pursued the tech companies whose app stores host social casino games. In 2021, a federal judge in the Northern District of California appointed Edelson PC as interim class counsel in the multidistrict litigation In Re: Apple Inc. App Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation (MDL No. 5:21-md-02985), which alleges Apple, Google, and Meta earned billions in commissions from illegal social casino transactions on their platforms.¹⁵

In September 2025, Judge Edward Davila dismissed all California-based claims in that MDL with prejudice, finding California’s longstanding public policy against civil suits arising from gambling transactions barred claims under the state’s Unfair Competition Law and unjust enrichment theories. The court also dismissed federal RICO and most state loss-recovery claims, reasoning that app stores are not “winners” under gambling statutes because their roughly 30 percent commission does not depend on the outcome of any wager. Consumer protection claims under certain other states’ laws were allowed to move forward, creating what one analysis called a “patchwork of exposure.”¹⁶

DraftKings, FanDuel, and the Sports Betting Cases

Alongside the social casino suits, a growing docket of class actions accuses licensed sportsbooks of deceptive marketing and exploiting problem gamblers. DraftKings is the most frequent target.

Massachusetts

In Massachusetts Superior Court, Melissa Scanlon and Shane Harris alleged DraftKings ran a “deceptive marketing scheme” around a $1,000 deposit bonus. According to the complaint, claiming it required depositing $5,000, wagering at least $25,000 within 90 days, and placing bets at odds of -300 or longer. In August 2024, Judge Debra A. Squires-Lee denied DraftKings’ motion to dismiss, finding the allegations “plausibly suggest that [bettors] were harmed.”¹⁷ A separate Massachusetts case filed in March 2026 alleges DraftKings and FanDuel use personalized algorithms and betting history data to fuel compulsive behavior; that plaintiff reports losing $160,000 across more than 8,000 bets.¹⁸

Pennsylvania

Five Pennsylvania men filed a class action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in July 2025 (Case No. 2:25-cv-03632) against DraftKings, Crown PA Gaming (doing business as DraftKings), and Golden Nugget Online Gaming. The complaint describes how “Risk-Free” and “No Sweat” promotions reimburse losses with non-withdrawable bonus bets that expire in seven days, and how “Deposit Match” offers contain requirements the plaintiffs call “nearly impossible to satisfy,” such as wagering up to $200,000 within a week to unlock $2,000 in credits.¹⁹ An earlier Pennsylvania suit filed in late April 2025 by Chicago firm Loevy + Loevy alleged DraftKings ignored self-exclusion requests. One plaintiff reported losing $350,000 after DraftKings allegedly restored his account access following a self-exclusion; another, a schoolteacher, reported losing $134,000.²⁰

Illinois, New York, and New Jersey

In December 2025, an Illinois federal judge let most claims in a proposed class action against DraftKings proceed, ruling that the DraftKings app interface may qualify as a “product” under Illinois product liability law. On March 2, 2026, U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gentleman denied DraftKings’ request for an interlocutory appeal, keeping the case on track for discovery.¹⁸ DraftKings class actions are also active in New York and New Jersey, with Loevy + Loevy coordinating filings. On November 19, 2025, a court ruled DraftKings must face fraud claims over “no-risk” betting advertisements.²¹

Baltimore v. DraftKings and FanDuel

The City of Baltimore sued DraftKings and FanDuel in April 2025, alleging the companies target and exploit problem gamblers in violation of the city’s Consumer Protection Ordinance. After the defendants removed the case to federal court, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher remanded it to the Baltimore City Circuit Court in November 2025, finding state courts better suited to interpret the local ordinance. DraftKings and FanDuel have appealed the remand to the Fourth Circuit, and the merits are paused pending that appeal.²²

BetMGM and Self-Exclusion

A Tennessee man sued BetMGM in October 2025, alleging the company allowed him to continue gambling despite his enrollment in both BetMGM’s self-exclusion program and a five-year state exclusion list administered by the Tennessee Sports Wagering Council. The plaintiff claims the state council removed him from the list before his requested 2026 end date, and he is seeking repayment of about $300,000 in wagers.²³

As of early 2026, more than 80 sports betting lawsuits were reported pending across New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Kentucky, New Jersey, Maryland, and California, with DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM, Caesars, and PointsBet all facing litigation.²⁴ No federal multidistrict panel has consolidated these cases yet, so defendants are litigating independently in state and federal courts across the country.²⁵

Which Legal Claims Are Working

Across these cases, a handful of theories are doing most of the work, with mixed results.

State gambling-loss recovery statutes, like Washington’s, have been the most successful theory in social casino cases. They underpin both the High 5 Games verdict and the $155 million Kater settlement, and courts in several states have accepted that virtual chips and dual-currency systems can satisfy the elements of a wager.
State consumer protection acts, alleging deceptive “free-to-play” marketing or unrealistic bonus conditions, have survived motions to dismiss in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Virginia, among others.
Federal RICO claims, used in the Stake.us litigation, face a high bar under Reves v. Ernst & Young, which requires showing a defendant participated in the “operation or management” of the enterprise rather than merely providing services to it.²⁶
Product liability theories, newer to this space, picked up ground when at least one court accepted that a gambling app’s interface can qualify as a “product,” opening a path to attack platform design choices.

Not every theory has worked. The September 2025 ruling in the Apple MDL dismissed all California-based claims on public policy grounds and rejected the argument that app stores are “winners” under gambling statutes because their commissions aren’t tied to wager outcomes.¹⁶ Whether a claim survives depends heavily on which state’s law applies.

If You Lost Money on These Platforms

Settlements and verdicts to date have been state-specific, and class membership typically depends on where you live and when you spent money. The SciPlay settlement, for example, covered only Alabama, Ohio, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Kentucky residents who spent on specific apps during specific windows, with a cash election deadline of November 4, 2025.⁸ The High 5 Games verdict applies to Washington players who bought chips after April 9, 2014.¹ If you spent money on any of the platforms named in the active cases above, a plaintiffs’ firm handling that litigation can tell you whether a class covering your state and dates is open or pending.

1
ClassAction.org. Jury Awards Nearly $25M to High 5 Casino Players in Mobile Gambling App Lawsuit
2
SBC Americas. High 5 Games Damages Casino Verdict
3
Edelson PC. Jury Returns First-Ever Class Action Verdict Against Illegal Online Casino Operator
4
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips. Proposed Washington Gambling Law Changes Aimed
5
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Kater Litigation Settlement Exhibit
6
Edelson PC. Class Actions
7
ClaimsHero. SciPlay Social Casino Games Settlement
8
SciPlay Settlement Official Website. SciPlay Settlement
9
Beasley Allen. Cracking Down: Cases Filed Over Online Casinos
10
Beasley Allen. Stake.us Class Action Complaint
11
DiCello Levitt. City of Baltimore Sues Major Social Casino Operators
12
iFightForYourRights.com. Chumba Casino and LuckyLand Slots Consumers New Jersey
13
Yahoo Entertainment. Rapper Drake, YouTuber Adin Ross Named in Class Action
14
City of Los Angeles City Attorney. LA City Attorney Files Lawsuit Against Online Gambling Enterprise
15
Law360. Apple Inc. App Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation
16
ZwillGen. California Says No Dice: Judge Dismisses State Claims in Social Casino MDL
17
Front Office Sports. DraftKings $1000 Bonus Deceptive Marketing
18
TorHoerman Law. Gambling Addiction Lawsuit
19
CaseFilingsAlert. DraftKings Risk-Free Bets Class Action Complaint
20
Covers. Pennsylvania Bettors Sue DraftKings for Fueling Addiction
21
Loevy + Loevy. DraftKings Class Actions
22
The Daily Record. Baltimore Sports Betting Lawsuit State Court Remand
23
WKRN News. Nashville Man Sues After Being Allowed to Gamble Despite Voluntary Ban
24
TruLaw. Online Gambling Addiction Lawsuit
25
Mass Tort Ad Agency. Sports Betting Addiction
26
Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law. High-Stakes Litigation: The Sweeping Implications of the Class Action Suit Against Stake and Drake