Florida AG Sues VGW and Stake.us Over Sweepstakes Casinos

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier filed two lawsuits on August 19, 2026 against the operators behind several of the largest sweepstakes casinos serving US players, along with the payment companies that move money for them.

Both were filed in the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County, as civil actions brought by the Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs. The state announced the filings the same day.

This is an allegation stage. Nothing has been proven, no court has ruled, and no defendant has yet answered on the public record.

What was filed and when

The VGW complaint carries filing number 255161948 and an electronic filing stamp of 8:52 a.m. on August 19, 2026. The Stake complaint carries filing number 255162092 and a stamp of 8:54 a.m. the same morning.

Each is captioned "Complaint for Equitable and Statutory Relief" with a jury trial demanded.

Who is named

The VGW case names VGW Holdings U.S. Inc., VGW U.S. Inc., VGW Luckyland Inc., VGW Holdings Pty Ltd., VGW Malta Ltd, VGW Malta Holding Limited and VGW Games Limited. It also names three financial companies: Yodlee Inc., Trustly Inc. and Worldpay Holdco LLC. The complaint identifies the consumer brands as Chumba Casino, LuckyLand Slots, LuckyLand Casino and Global Poker.

The Stake case names Sweepsteaks Ltd. doing business as Stake.us, Easygo Group Holdings Pty Ltd., Medium Rare N.V., Kick Streaming Pty Ltd., founders Bijan Tehrani and Ed Craven, and two payment firms, Praxis Tech Ltd. and Breeze Labs Payments Inc.

Naming the payment processors and the founders personally is the notable structural choice. Most private sweepstakes litigation has stopped at the operator.

What the complaints allege

Both filings make the same core argument: that the dual-currency model is a wrapper around real-money gambling. Players buy Gold Coin packages that arrive bundled with Sweeps Coins or Stake Cash, and those secondary coins can be redeemed after what the state calls minimal play-through.

The VGW complaint puts it bluntly in its opening paragraph: "if it looks, swims, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."

The state also alleges deceptive marketing, specifically the promotion of the sites as free, safe and legal social entertainment, 24/7 access, acceptance of credit cards, and the use of influencers and celebrity campaigns to pull in vulnerable users including minors and seniors.

On scale, the VGW complaint alleges more than $5 billion in 2025 revenue, with $3.7 billion attributed to Chumba Casino alone. The Stake complaint alleges roughly $4.7 billion in 2024 gross gaming revenue, citing a Forbes profile of Craven.

What the state is asking for

Each complaint pleads two counts.

Count I seeks forfeiture and recovery of money lost gambling under sections 849.12 and 849.29 of the Florida Statutes. Section 849.12 expressly lets the Department of Legal Affairs bring civil forfeiture proceedings on behalf of the state. Section 849.29 makes a wide group jointly and severally liable, including anyone with an interest in the gambling transaction "as backer, vendor, owner or otherwise." That is the hook reaching the payment companies, and Count I is pleaded against all defendants.

Count II alleges violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and it is drawn more narrowly. In the VGW case it runs against the seven VGW entities only. In the Stake case it runs against Sweepsteaks, Easygo, Kick Streaming, Tehrani and Craven. The payment processors are not named in the FDUTPA count in either case.

The relief requested includes permanent injunctions, forfeiture, disgorgement, restitution to consumers, attorneys' fees, and civil penalties of up to $10,000 per willful violation, rising to $15,000 where the consumer was over 60 or had a disability.

What changes for Florida players right now

Practically, nothing changed on August 19.

Neither complaint asks for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. Both ask for permanent injunctive relief, which is end-of-case relief that follows a ruling. There is no court order in place requiring either operator to stop serving Florida.

Neither filing freezes player accounts or balances, and no individual player is named as a defendant in either case. The forfeiture theory runs against the companies, not against the people who played.

If you hold a balance at any of the named brands, a state case creates uncertainty over months to years, not hours. Redemption timelines and state availability are set by the operators and can change without notice, so check current terms rather than assuming today's rules hold.

How this fits the 2026 wave

Florida is not acting in isolation, but the specifics matter more than the pattern.

The City of Baltimore already has a case against VGW and other sweepstakes operators, including Stake.us parent Sweepsteaks Limited. That case was removed from the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to the US District Court for the District of Maryland on April 23, 2026, docketed as 1:26-cv-01591. Baltimore separately sued prediction market operator Kalshi, a case docketed federally on August 14, 2026.

Those are municipal consumer protection actions. Florida's is a state attorney general suing under a state forfeiture statute and a state deceptive practices act, and it reaches further down the supply chain by naming processors.

What to watch: whether defendants remove either case to federal court, whether the foreign entities contest personal jurisdiction, and whether the state later moves for temporary relief. None of that has happened yet.

Sources

• Florida Office of the Attorney General, "Attorney General James Uthmeier Files Lawsuits Against Operators of Illegal Online Casinos," August 19, 2026
• Complaint, Office of the Attorney General v. VGW Holdings U.S. Inc. et al., filing no. 255161948 (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir., Hillsborough Cnty., filed August 19, 2026)
• Complaint, Office of the Attorney General v. Sweepsteaks Ltd. d/b/a Stake.us et al., filing no. 255162092 (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir., Hillsborough Cnty., filed August 19, 2026)
• Fla. Stat. section 849.12, "Money and prizes to be forfeited"
• Fla. Stat. section 849.29, "Persons against whom suits may be brought to recover on gambling contracts"
• Docket, City of Baltimore v. VGW Malta Ltd et al., No. 1:26-cv-01591 (D. Md.)
• Docket, City of Baltimore v. Kalshiex LLC, No. 1:26-cv-03217 (D. Md.)