Another lawsuit, another shadow cast over Stake.us as legal pressure mounts around the social casino’s cryptic façade.
The illusion may be cracking. Stake.us, the sweepstakes offshoot of crypto giant Stake.com, now faces its second class action lawsuit in the United States. Filed in the Northern District of Illinois by plaintiff Brayden Urdan, the lawsuit claims the platform is not a harmless sweepstakes game. Instead, it accuses Stake.us of operating as an unlicensed online casino under a seductive disguise.
The legal action follows a near-identical case in California. But this time, the charge is being led by Edelson PC, the same legal firm that recently secured a $25 million verdict in the High 5 Games case. That case, too, targeted a social casino model, and the jury agreed that virtual coins held real-world value.
We’ve been here before. SiGMA News flagged the brewing storm, and the clouds are now thickening. This isn’t just one rogue wave. It’s the start of a swell.
The complaint targets Stake’s two-token system
At the core of the lawsuit is Stake’s dual-currency structure. Players pay for Gold Coins, but each transaction includes a bonus allocation of Stake Cash. The friction starts because players can gamble and withdraw Stake Cash for real money, dollar for dollar.
The complaint calls the model a calculated illusion, claiming Stake.us is a “virtual clone” of Stake.com, which is a crypto casino already banned in most US states. Critics accuse Stake of applying surface-level changes and rebranding, leaving its engine intact, rather than rethinking its operations. What was once banned now dances in daylight, and instead of “casino,” it now calls itself “social casino” and hopes nobody looks too closely.
The suit claims, “Ultimately, once a promotional Stake Cash is exhausted, the only viable way to continue gambling is to purchase more.”
The reward lies hidden in a labyrinth. Each turn, each form, and each click is designed not to guide but to mislead. From login loops to unclear submission steps, the process appears built for friction. Doors open, paths branch, but few lead to reward. Instead, the straightest line points to the wallet. And? The system knows it.
Famous faces mask deeper risks
The faces are familiar. The smiles are rehearsed. But through the fog of fame, truth flickers like a dying light: distant, distorted, and slipping further out of reach. The same faces flash on both sides of the mirror. Drake and Adesanya flaunt the glittering promise of fortune. According to the complaint, these endorsements blur the lines between the brands and deepen the illusion. But when two doors lead to the same room, who’s really in control of the game?
According to the suit, these influencers do more than advertise. They romanticise gambling. Flashy visuals, exaggerated wins, and sponsored gameplay streams surround Stake in a haze of glamour. The complaint claims this style of marketing appeals strongly to younger users, who may move from light interest to frequent play without realising the shift.
Urdan, who began playing in 2022, claims he lost over $15,000. When he complained, the company allegedly revoked his access. Stake, he argues, offers no responsible gambling tools, support services, or regulation.
The complaint positions Stake’s approach within a growing category of so-called “social casinos,” many of which are now being pulled into court. SiGMA News also reported on a major suit involving five major operators, including DraftKings and FanDuel, who now face scrutiny in Washington over the legality of sports betting promotions and access models. That case, detailed in 5 major US sportsbooks sued in Washington, points to a widening legal net.
However, while lawsuits pile up, the sweepstakes industry is fighting back through policy channels. In April, the SPGA celebrated the defeat of several anti-gaming bills in Arkansas, Maryland, and Mississippi, arguing that legislators “aren’t buying the hype” around banning digital entertainment.
The legal spotlight sharpens
Stake.us, at the time of writing, has not responded publicly to the lawsuit. The company maintains that it operates within sweepstakes guidelines, offering no-purchase-necessary options and free-to-play models.
The legal sharks are circling, and they’ve read the rulebook. They suggest that Illinois law enables treble damages in gambling loss cases, and few players file within the six-month window. This loophole allows class actions to move forward, and Illinois courts rarely shy away from them.
The sweepstakes model is increasingly under fire. And recent rulings, such as Washington’s High 5 Games case, are widening the definition of gambling.
This case may not draw blood yet, but Stake.us is no longer a ghost in the system as the legal spotlight intensifies. After securing a $25 million settlement from High 5 Games, Edelson PC arrives in Illinois with a proven track record. Their involvement may force Stake.us to confront uncomfortable truths behind its sleek front. What looks polished may not hold up under pressure. All it takes is one stumble. The glamour fades, the smoke clears, and what’s left isn’t magic: it’s machinery.
The courtroom door is open. What Stake finds on the other side may not be regulation but reckoning.
