Florida Sues Stake and VGW Over Sweepstakes Casinos

From exclusive events and interviews to real-time market trends, Ace Alliance brings you unbiased, well-informed, and data-driven content. Our editorial team adheres to strict editorial standards, ensuring that the information you receive is not only relevant but also trustworthy.

Built by market experts hosting events since 2023, with our first event in Riga, Latvia gathering over 300 top level iGaming industry executives, Ace Alliance is able to provide you with reliable information from direct interaction with experts and leaders in the sector.

Altay Celikkaya

Content Manager

Updated: 21/08/26

Reading Time: 2 minutes

On 19 August, the Florida Attorney General’s Office filed two civil lawsuits in Hillsborough County Circuit Court against entities linked to Stake and VGW. The actions concern Stake.us and VGW-operated platforms Chumba Casino, LuckyLand and Global Poker, as well as several payment processing companies. Florida alleges that the platforms’ dual-currency systems constitute unlicensed online gambling presented as social or sweepstakes gaming. The court has not yet ruled on the claims.

Florida state flag flying outside a courthouse, representing the state’s lawsuits against Stake and VGW.

Regulation & Compliance

Key Takeaways From Florida’s Sweepstakes Casino Lawsuits

The cases extend beyond a dispute over how sweepstakes casinos are classified. Their scope creates direct compliance implications for operators and the financial service providers supporting gambling-adjacent platforms.

Florida is challenging the dual-currency model under existing gambling and consumer-protection laws.
Payment providers have been named as defendants alongside the platform operators.
The state is seeking permanent injunctions, consumer restitution, disgorgement and civil penalties.
The cases could raise due-diligence expectations for payment providers serving comparable platforms.

Dual-Currency Model Faces Legal Challenge

Stake and VGW offer virtual currencies for use in casino-style games. Players typically purchase non-redeemable Gold Coins and receive a second currency, such as Stake Cash or Sweeps Coins, which can be used for gameplay and later redeemed for cash or cash equivalents.

The Attorney General alleges that these secondary currencies act as substitutes for real money and that presenting the platforms as social gaming does not change the legal character of the activity. The state also claims that the operators avoid licensing, taxation and consumer protections required of authorised gambling businesses.

This interpretation reflects a wider state-level challenge to the model. Indiana has already enacted a ban on dual-currency sweepstakes casinos, while other jurisdictions continue to consider legislation or enforcement measures.

Payment Providers Brought Into the Dispute

The lawsuits extend beyond the consumer-facing platforms by naming payment and financial technology companies accused of facilitating transactions. The defendants include:

VGW case: Yodlee, Trustly and Worldpay-related entities.
Stake case: Praxis Tech and Breeze Labs Payments.

By including these businesses, Florida is testing whether potential liability can extend across the supporting financial infrastructure. For B2B suppliers, the cases place merchant onboarding, transaction monitoring and jurisdiction-specific risk assessments at the centre of the dispute.

Other states have raised similar concerns. Minnesota’s proposed restrictions would extend controls to payment processors and affiliates supporting sweepstakes casino platforms. The developing enforcement pattern highlights the need for suppliers to assess both a product’s underlying structure and its legal status in every market served.

Florida Seeks Injunctions and Consumer Recovery

Florida is seeking permanent injunctions preventing the defendants from operating or soliciting business in the state. The requested remedies also include the recovery of money lost by Florida consumers, restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties and legal costs.

The cases rely on Florida’s existing gambling statutes and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, rather than a newly enacted sweepstakes-specific prohibition.

Until the court rules, the classification of the platforms and any liability attributed to their payment partners remain allegations advanced by the state.