Pragmatic Play Lawsuit: LA Case, AB 831, and US Exit

Pragmatic Play was named as a defendant in an August 2025 civil enforcement lawsuit filed by the Los Angeles City Attorney against the sweepstakes platform Stake.us, and within days the Gibraltar-based game supplier pulled its titles from every US sweepstakes operator. The Pragmatic Play lawsuit marked the first time a major US enforcement action reached past a sweepstakes platform to name the companies supplying its games, and the exit followed both that filing and California’s move to write supplier liability directly into state law.

What the Los Angeles Lawsuit Alleges

Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto filed the case in late August 2025 in Los Angeles Superior Court against Stake.us and more than 20 affiliated entities and individuals. The complaint, The People of the State of California v. Sweepsteaks Ltd. d/b/a Stake.us, et al. (Case No. 25STCV25304), alleges that Stake.us runs an unlicensed illegal gambling enterprise disguised as a “social casino.”¹

At the center of the complaint is Stake.us’s dual-currency model, in which players buy Gold Coins and receive Stake Cash that can be redeemed for cryptocurrency or digital gift cards. Prosecutors call the structure a “transparent attempt to mask real money gaming” and argue it constitutes gambling under California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.² The City Attorney’s office described the platform as a “rogue and real money gambling racket” and a “carbon copy” of the offshore site Stake.com, built to sidestep US regulations. The suit seeks to shut down California operations, recover player losses, and impose civil penalties, and it notes that Stake earned roughly $4.7 billion in gross revenue in 2024 with a “large portion” from the United States.¹

How Pragmatic Play Was Named

The complaint identifies two Gibraltar entities, Veridian (Gibraltar) Limited and Tamaris (Gibraltar) Limited, as the “Pragmatic Defendants.” It alleges that Tamaris “creates, manages, repairs, and licenses slot machines, live casino games, and other casino games under the brand name ‘Pragmatic Play’ to Stake.us.”³

Prosecutors go further, arguing that the Pragmatic entities acted in furtherance of what they call the “Stake Illegal Gambling Scheme” and that the entities “must be treated as alter egos” because separating their liability from the broader enterprise would be “inequitable.” The theory is straightforward: by licensing its games to Stake.us, Pragmatic Play helped make the alleged illegal operation possible.³

Pragmatic Play was not alone. The complaint also names Evolution Gaming and several of its subsidiaries (Big Time Gaming, Red Tiger, NetEnt, and Nolimit City), Hacksaw Gaming, identity-verification firm Veriff, and the streaming platform Kick. Stake.us co-founders Ed Craven and Bijan Tehrani were named personally, with prosecutors alleging that the multi-company ownership structure was “designed in part to avoid personal liability and to protect Mr. Tehrani and Mr. Craven from the risks of running an illegal online casino.”³

Why Pragmatic Play Exited the US Sweepstakes Market

Within days of the filing, Pragmatic Play announced it would stop licensing its games to every US sweepstakes operator, citing “regulatory developments and evolving legislation.”⁴ Its titles came off Stake.us for California players starting September 1, 2025, and the withdrawal was extended to every US state where the company had not already pulled back.⁵

Other suppliers moved along the same track. Evolution pulled its games from Stake.us in California around the same time.⁴ Hacksaw Gaming CEO Christoffer Källberg said the company would stop supplying California sweepstakes operators before January 1, 2026, and declined to comment on the suit itself on the grounds that no Hacksaw entity had been formally served.⁶ At least eleven providers removed their games from Stake.us in California in response to the legal and regulatory pressure.⁷

California’s AB 831 and Supplier Liability

The lawsuit was not the only reason to leave. On October 11, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 831 into law. It took effect January 1, 2026, and added a new section to the California Penal Code (§337o) making it a criminal misdemeanor to operate or support an “online sweepstakes game” that uses a dual-currency system, simulates gambling, and awards cash or cash equivalents.⁸⁹

For a company like Pragmatic Play, the decisive language is the vendor-liability clause. AB 831 makes it unlawful for “any entity, financial institution, payment processor, geolocation provider, gaming content supplier, platform provider, or media affiliate” to “knowingly and willfully support directly or indirectly” a prohibited sweepstakes game in California. Penalties reach up to one year in jail and fines between $1,000 and $25,000 per violation. The “knowingly and willfully” standard was a late amendment, added after suppliers argued they have limited control over how third-party aggregators distribute their content.⁸⁵

California is not the only state going after suppliers. New York enacted Senate Bill S5935 in December 2025, which likewise reaches game suppliers alongside operators.²¹⁰

Where the Case Stands

The litigation is still in its preliminary phase as of mid-2026. The Hacksaw, Evolution, Gibraltar (Pragmatic), and Veriff defendants have filed demurrers challenging the legal sufficiency of the complaint and motions to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. The People of California filed oppositions to those motions in May 2026.¹¹

The court has set hearings on the preliminary motions through the summer and fall of 2026. Motions to quash filed by the Gibraltar defendants (including the Pragmatic entities), the Stake defendants, Hacksaw, Evolution, and Veriff are scheduled for August 2026. Demurrers from the Gibraltar, Hacksaw, Evolution, and Veriff defendants are set for September and October 2026. No rulings on the merits or settlements have been reported.¹¹

The jurisdictional fight matters. Several defendants are foreign companies, and the personal-jurisdiction motions will test whether licensing games to a California-accessible platform is enough by itself to pull a foreign supplier into a California court. A ruling for the state on that question would have implications well beyond Pragmatic Play.

Pragmatic Play’s US Position

Pragmatic Play is a business-to-business supplier headquartered in Gibraltar and is not currently active in the regulated US iGaming market. Some industry observers have read the full sweepstakes withdrawal as a possible precursor to a licensed US market entry, but as of mid-2026 there is no public record of Pragmatic Play applying for or holding a state gaming license in any legal US iGaming jurisdiction.⁵

The company also carries an older reputational issue that predates the current litigation. Pragmatic Play was formed in Gibraltar in 2015, and industry reporting has connected its leadership to the earlier software provider TopGame, which operated three progressive jackpots funded by player contributions that collectively totaled more than $6.4 million. Reporting states those funds were never awarded or returned to players when the games were discontinued during the transition to Pragmatic Play. No formal legal proceedings over the missing funds have been publicly documented, and Pragmatic Play has reportedly disputed the characterization that it is a continuation of TopGame.¹²

1
City of Los Angeles. LA City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto Files Lawsuit Against Online Gambling Enterprise
2
WilmerHale. Legal Developments in the Gaming Industry: Second Half of 2025
3
Susman Godfrey. People v. Stake.us Complaint
4
Next.io. Evolution, Pragmatic Exit Stake.us California
5
Next.io. Exclusive: Pragmatic Play Ends Supply Sweepstakes
6
Sweepsy. Hacksaw Gaming California Sweepstakes Casinos Before 2026
7
Deadspin. 11 Top Game Providers Leave Stake.us in California
8
CalMatters Digital Democracy. AB 831
9
ZwillGen. California’s AB 831 Bans Sweepstakes Casinos, Expands Liability Vendors
10
Venable. States Escalate Crackdown on Sweepstakes Casinos
11
PlainSite. The People of the State of California v. Sweepsteaks Ltd., et al.
12
Casino Listings. Pragmatic Play