By: Khashayar Orumchi
Introduction
Online gambling and influencer promotion have increasingly collided in legally grey territories, raising concerns about consumer protection, regulatory evasion, and the responsibilities of public figures who promote high-risk platforms to their audiences. This article aims to examine a lawsuit that showcases how legally questionable gambling models are being promoted to millions of people through celebrity-driven marketing. Rather than standing alone, this case reflects the current trend of online gambling and crypto-based betting platforms. With this growing trend, we are seeing a rise in legal and policy concerns, and it is through these concerns that we see the Stake.us lawsuit in Missouri.
In the new class-action lawsuit, filed in Jackson County, Missouri, the gambling platform Stake.us, promoted by Drake and Adin Ross, is accused of running an unlicensed online casino through a workaround that allowed users to gamble for real monetary value.
The plaintiffs aim to shut down Stake.us and seek injunctive relief and monetary damages against two of Stake’s biggest promoters, Canadian music artist Drake and streamer and social media influencer Adin Ross. Similar actions have already appeared in states such as New Mexico and California, signalling a growing pattern of litigation targeting influencer-driven gambling platforms.
In exploring the implications of the Missouri case, this article sets out the factual background and the mechanics of the Stake.us model, examines the role of influencers, situates the case within broader industry trends, and analyses the legal and regulatory issues arising from it.
Background of the Case
The class action lawsuit was filed on October 27th in Jackson County, naming Sweepsteaks Limited, Drake, and Adin Ross as co-defendants.
Sweepsteaks Limited operates one of the most profitable online casinos, Stake.com. Stake.com is widely popular globally and sponsors Everton, an English Premier League club, as well as multiple MMA and UFC fighters, and the Formula One racing team Sauber.
Despite its global dominance, Stake.com was unable to expand its platform into the US market due to stringent online gambling regulations in many US states. Stake.us was created to circumvent these restrictions and was marketed as a “social casino,” not a form of actual gambling.
How Stake.us Functions
Stake.us offers two types of virtual currency, Gold Coins and Stake Cash. Users of Stake.us can purchase Gold Coins, which have no real-world value, but purchases of Gold Coins are bundled with a bonus of Stake Cash, which can be gambled with and cashed out as cryptocurrency, thereby gaining real-world value.
The lawsuit alleges that this structure serves as a workaround to U.S. gambling regulations, effectively allowing Stake.us to operate as an unlicensed online casino.
The Role of Influencers
The lawsuit further alleges that Stake.us utilises influential figures, such as Drake and Adin Ross, alongside other marketing tactics, including sponsorships and social media outreach, to disseminate deceptive messaging.
Drake and Adin Ross regularly promote Stake on Instagram and stream their gambling sessions on Kick, a platform owned by Stake’s founders, often showcasing their enormous winnings. The lawsuit alleges that these advertisements are conducted under “deeply fraudulent pretences,” as they often do not gamble with their own money, despite telling the public the opposite.
The lawsuit mentions that Drake’s massive online following, with over 140 million Instagram followers, and calls Drake’s role as “Stake’s unofficial mascot” coercive. The lawsuit further alleges that Stake offers Drake and Ross “house money” so any losses become part of a tactic to draw more attention.
The facts of this case are extensive, and one can spend considerable time examining the lawsuit’s details and the actions of Stake.com, Stake.us, and Kick. However, this article aims to highlight a few key points that emerge from this case, which could potentially alter the current trend of online gambling websites endorsed by prominent athletes, artists, and influencers.
Broader Industry Trends
Online gambling has been a phenomenon for a long time, but we have seen a massive rise in both the usage of online gambling and the advertising of it. This trend has also brought investing apps into online gambling. On August 19, 2025, Robinhood, an investing app, announced a new feature that allowed sports betting on its app. Interestingly, the next day, FanDuel, a sports betting website, partnered with CME to bring stock market gambling to its website. And in October, in a massive move, the New York Stock Exchange’s parent company invested $2 billion in Polymark, a cryptocurrency-based prediction market.
What is fascinating about this trend is that many of these companies use famous and influential figures as their advertisers. Drake, Adin Ross, XQC, Neymar Jr., Cristiano Ronaldo, Michael Phelps, Paris Hilton, and Bruce Buffer are among the famous individuals who collaborate with online gambling companies in some capacity.
The legal dimension
Influencer Liability
A key issue in this case is the scope of influencer liability for allegedly “deceptive” advertising practices. Deceptive advertising laws in the US, governed in part by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), prohibit false or misleading claims about products or services.The lawsuit alleges that Drake and Ross misrepresented their gambling activities by using “house money” to gamble without disclosing it. Given the facts of the case and the clear laws against misleading advertising, Drake and Ross’s actions could be construed as unlawful.
If courts allow claims like this to proceed, it could set a precedent where influencers are expected to conduct due diligence before endorsing a company, especially one operating in legally grey or heavily regulated fields. It may also encourage plaintiffs to target celebrities not only for their role in boosting visibility but for the deceptive nature of the promotions themselves, especially when the influencer’s conduct (e.g., pretending to gamble with their own money) becomes part of the alleged wrongdoing.
Contractual Protections
According to LegalSportsReport, considering Drake acted as Stake’s ambassador, there is a likely chance that his endorsement/ambassador contract could protect him against liability by including standard contractual protections and liability-limiting clauses, such as:
- Grant Endorsement of Rights (allowing the company to use his likeness and promotional content)
- Influencer Services (outlining the duties he must perform)
- Compensation/Free Credits (payment or perks provided for promotion, such as cash or gaming credits)
- Indemnification (shifting liability from the influencer to the company in case of any third-party claim for damages)
Assuming such clauses are in place, naming Drake or Ross as defendants may not result in direct financial relief from them. However, the case could still open the door to a new era in which influencers, artists, and streamers can become entangled in litigation arising from the activities of the companies they promote. Until now, influencer liability has been relatively rare and mainly limited to issues like improper disclosure of sponsorships. But cases like this one signal a shift: when the advertised product deals with gambling, cryptocurrency, or financial speculation, areas already rife with regulation and potential illegality, promoters may increasingly find themselves pulled into legal disputes.
Class Action Considerations
Class action considerations are also relevant. The Missouri case may involve multiple claimants, and courts look to standards such as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which requires:
- Numerosity (sufficiently large group)
- Commonality (common legal or factual questions)
- Typicality (claims or defences typical of class members)
- Adequacy of representation
Missouri has recently aligned its class action rules with federal standards, meaning that certification, common questions of law or fact, and representative adequacy are central to whether such cases can proceed. The Boyle v. Sweepsteaks case illustrates how standing, injury in fact, and the availability of injunctive relief are assessed in online gambling disputes; a plaintiff alleging economic harm and ongoing risk of future injury may have standing to pursue claims akin to a class action, even if not formally certified as one.
The current case in Missouri is brought by Justin Killham on behalf of himself and others in similar situations. While the current class size is unknown, it could include hundreds of Missouri residents who have lost money on Stake.us.
Emerging Legal Landscape / Regulatory Challenges
Part of what makes this case significant is that it sits in a legal realm that is still taking shape. Online gambling, cryptocurrency-based casinos, and sweepstakes models operate in an intersection of laws that vary dramatically from one state to another. Many digital gambling platforms exploit these gaps by branding themselves as “social casinos” or “entertainment-only” services, even when their structure functionally mirrors real gambling.
The rise of crypto adds another layer of complexity. Tracking deposits, winnings, and cash-outs becomes exponentially more difficult when funds move through decentralised networks.Regulators often struggle to keep up, leaving vast portions of the online gambling world unregulated or ambiguously regulated. Courts, too, are only beginning to confront these questions, meaning that many of the legal answers are still in formation. Cases like the one in Missouri may set early guideposts for consumer protection, advertising standards, and the duties of public figures in the online gambling space.
Conclusion
The Stake.us case can be a turning point in how the law treats influencer-driven promotion of high-risk digital products. The role of celebrities and influencers becomes increasingly central and, by extension, scrutinised as online gambling platforms continue to expand faster than regulators can respond. Even if these celebrities are not ultimately found legally liable, the moral implications are harder to ignore. Whether or not Drake or Adin Ross is found legally liable, the lawsuit highlights the growing need for transparency, accountability, and ethical responsibility in an industry built on volatility and persuasion. It may also set early guideposts for courts on consumer protection, advertising standards, and the duties of public figures in online gambling spaces.
Works Cited
‘Detailing class action suit filed in Missouri against Stake US and Drake’ Legal Sports Report https://www.legalsportsreport.com/245486/detailing-class-action-suit-filed-in-missouri-against-stake-us-drake/ accessed 6 December 2025.
‘Drake faces second Stake US lawsuit in New Mexico’ CasinoBeats (30 October 2025) https://casinobeats.com/2025/10/30/drake-second-stakeus-lawsuit-new-mexico/ accessed 6 December 2025.
Wallach Legal, post on X (25 April 2024) https://x.com/WALLACHLEGAL/status/1982973910099325095 accessed 6 December 2025.
(If you want the exact date from the post, I can grab it.)
Conor Murray, ‘Drake, Adin Ross and Stake online casino sued for deceptive online gambling practices’ Forbes (28 October 2025) https://www.forbes.com/… accessed 6 December 2025.
‘Drake and Adin Ross face illegal gambling lawsuit over Stake’ The Fader (28 October 2025) https://www.thefader.com/2025/10/28/drake-adin-ross-stake-illegal-gambling-lawsuit accessed 6 December 2025.
‘Breaking down latest California lawsuit against Stake US and its affiliates’ Legal Sports Report https://www.legalsportsreport.com/240723/breaking-down-latest-california-lawsuit-against-stake-us-and-its-affiliates/accessed 6 December 2025.
‘Los Angeles City Attorney files landmark lawsuit against Stake US and partners’ Gambling Insiderhttps://www.gamblinginsider.com/news/30950/los-angeles-city-attorney-files-landmark-lawsuit-against-stakeus-and-partners accessed 6 December 2025.
‘Polymarket to list on New York Stock Exchange’ Axios (7 October 2025) https://www.axios.com/2025/10/07/polymarket-new-york-stock-exchange accessed 6 December 2025.
‘Stake US review – legal states – New Jersey’ Deadspin https://deadspin.com/sweepstakes-casinos/reviews/stake-us/legal-states/new-jersey/ accessed 6 December 2025.
‘Deliberate deception lawsuit targets Stake and Drake over alleged illegal gambling scheme’ KCTV5 (28 October 2025) https://www.kctv5.com/2025/10/28/deliberate-deception-lawsuit-targets-stake-drake/ accessed 6 December 2025.
‘Online gambling laws’ Fortis Media https://www.fortismedia.com/en/articles/online-gambling-laws/ accessed 6 December 2025.
‘What’s going on with Stake in California and the rest of the US?’ Gambling Insider Magazine https://www.gamblinginsider.com/magazine/1187/whats-going-on-with-stake-in-california-and-the-rest-of-the-usaccessed 6 December 2025.
‘Understanding the rules of the game: legal restrictions on gambling advertising’ Don Turner Legal Team https://www.donturnerlegalteam.com/understanding-the-rules-of-the-game-legal-restrictions-on-gambling-advertising/accessed 6 December 2025.
‘Gambling marketing laws’ Fortis Media https://www.fortismedia.com/en/articles/gambling-marketing-laws/ accessed 6 December 2025.
‘New rules boosting safety and consumer choice’ UK Gambling Commission https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news/article/new-rules-boosting-safety-and-consumer-choice accessed 6 December 2025.
‘Regulators call for stronger measures against illegal online gambling’ UK Gambling Commission https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news/article/regulators-call-for-stronger-measures-against-illegal-online-gambling accessed 6 December 2025.
‘Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 23’ Legal Information Institute (Cornell Law School) https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_23 accessed 6 December 2025.
‘Missouri aligns class action rule with federal standards’ Thompson Coburn LLP https://www.thompsoncoburn.com/insights/missouri-aligns-class-action-rule-with-federal-standards/ accessed 6 December 2025.
‘Stake US Casino and Drake named in lawsuit – what’s next?’ PennLive (November 2025) https://www.pennlive.com/sweepstakes-casinos/2025/11/stakeus-casino-and-drake-were-named-in-a-lawsuit-whats-next-for-the-sweepstakes-casino.html accessed 6 December 2025.
‘Sport on steroids: walking the ethical and legal tightrope of the Enhanced Games’ Sports. Legal (July 2025) https://www.sports.legal/2025/07/sport-on-steroids-walking-the-ethical-and-legal-tightrope-of-the-enhanced-games/accessed 6 December 2025.
Legal Sports Report – Sports News Category Page https://www.legalsportsreport.com/category/sports-news/ accessed 6 December 2025.
