VGW is now facing lawsuits from Attorney General’s offices in two states.
Earlier this week, Florida Attorney General Jason Uthmeier filed lawsuits against both VGW and Stake, and that came just a couple months after Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman filed lawsuits of his own against VGW, Kalshi, and Polymarket.
The two complaints follow largely the same thought line, focusing on the dual-currency Gold Coins and Sweeps Coins model used by VGW’s platforms — Chumba Casino, LuckyLand Slots, Global Poker, and LuckyLand Casino — and the vast majority of traditional sweeps casinos. But when it comes to defendants, causes of action, and potential remedies, the cases actually differ significantly.
Both lawsuits argue VGW’s gaming model equates to gambling
At the center of both lawsuits is a straightforward allegation: VGW may call its products social casinos or sweepstakes games, but Coleman and Uthmeier argue that the underlying activity is gambling. And they both spend a long time explaining the distinction between Gold Coins and Sweeps Coins in their complaints.
Gold Coins are purchasable and can be used for gameplay, but they cannot be redeemed.
Sweeps Coins, meanwhile, can ultimately be redeemed for cash or cash equivalents, but they cannot be directly purchased.
Coleman alleges that one Sweeps Coin is effectively equivalent to one U.S. dollar. Uthmeier makes essentially the same argument and highlights how players pay real money for a Gold Coin package that contains free Sweeps Coins, and then they wager the Sweeps Coins and can eventually redeem them for real money.
The dual-currency structure is important because both Attorneys General argue it doesn’t transform the underlying gambling into something legal simply because one component of the transaction is labeled “free.”
VGW has long argued that its dual-currency gaming model does not constitute real-money gambling because players don’t have to spend any money to get Sweeps Coins. They can get free Sweeps Coins via promos like daily login bonuses or write-in offers. While VGW did not respond to a request for comment regarding the Florida lawsuit, it did send out a response to the Kentucky lawsuit.
“We respectfully reject the Kentucky Attorney General’s claims and plan to vigorously defend this lawsuit,” a VGW spokesperson said when the lawsuit was filed. “We have lawfully operated in the US for more than a decade, delivering online Social Plus games to millions of Americans who value the freedom to enjoy the free, fun entertainment that this lawsuit effectively targets. With values including ‘our players come first’ and ‘we do what’s right’, we pride ourselves on creating not only the best games, player experiences and entertainment, but ensuring this is done safely and responsibly with robust consumer protections.”
Both lawsuits argue VGW’s marketing is misleading
Both Attorneys General also attack VGW’s marketing.
The complaints argue that VGW uses terms such as “social play,” “sweepstakes,” and “free” to present the platforms as something other than gambling.
Uthmeier says the word “gambling” is rarely used on VGW’s websites and argues that the way the sites describes their content creates the impression that the platforms are lawful entertainment rather than gambling operations.
Coleman makes a similar allegation, arguing that VGW describes its products as “Social Plus” games and uses the free Gold Coin component to obscure what the he asserts is the real-money gambling taking place through Sweeps Coins.
Both complaints therefore argue that players are being misled about what they are actually participating in.
The case expands beyond VGW in Florida
This is where the Florida lawsuit becomes considerably different.
Kentucky’s defendants are essentially VGW-related companies, along with as-yet-unidentified John Does.
Florida adds payment processors Yodlee, Trustly, and Worldpay as defendants.
Uthmeier argues that their services provide the financial infrastructure necessary for players to fund their VGW accounts, purchase digital currency, play games (which he calls gambling), and receive redemptions (which he asserts are like real-money payouts).
He goes further, though, arguing Yodlee, Trustly, and Worldplay were longstanding participants in the gaming and financial industries and knew, or were willfully blind to, VGW’s lack of U.S. regulation. Uthmeier points to their experience working with regulated gaming companies as evidence that they could understand the distinction between legal gambling and the services provided on VGW’s sites.
That makes Florida’s case broader than Kentucky’s in that it’s not just asserting that VGW operated illegal gambling sites. It also wants companies that helped move the money to be held responsible.
Kentucky has a bigger focus on player losses
In his lawsuit, Coleman invokes Kentucky’s Loss Recovery Act and argues that VGW qualifies as a “winner” because it either keeps players’ gambling losses or takes a rake from certain games. So Kentucky is seeking recovery of qualifying gambling losses of $5 or more within a 24-hour period, along with treble damages, which essentially means that if the court rules a player had $10,000 in illegal gambling losses, they’d get awarded triple that — so $30,000.
That could become one of the most consequential aspects of the Kentucky lawsuit.
Uthmeier certainly seeks monetary remedies, including disgorgement and restitution. But Kentucky’s complaint is more explicit about tying the amount to individual gambling losses.
Both lawsuits call on consumer protection claims
The consumer protection portions of the lawuits are also similar, although they rely on different state laws.
Coleman brings a claim under the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, alleging unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive conduct.
Uthmeier relies on the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, or FDUTPA.
Their basic arguments are familiar: Players allegedly were encouraged to view VGW’s sites as free or social entertainment, while the companies were actually allegedly operating a system involving purchases, wagers, and cashable prizes.
Kentucky lawsuit adds unjust enrichment
Kentucky also brings an unjust enrichment claim, which is essentially when a plaintiff seeks repayment when someone unfairly benefits at another’s expense without legal justification.
In the lawsuit, Coleman alleges that VGW benefited from billions of dollars in revenue and profits and Kentucky players’ expense. The complaint specifically points to digital currency sales, player losses, and the collection and monetization of consumer information as sources of alleged enrichment.
Uthmeier does not use a similar claim in the complaint. Instead, he places a ton of emphasis on disgorgement and other remedies.
Kentucky lawsuit also goes after the gambling devices
Another distinction is that Coleman argues that VGW’s online gaming technology qualifies as gambling devices under Kentucky law. That gives Kentucky another potential remedy beyond consumer losses and deceptive practices penalties.
Uthmeier, by contrast, focuses heavily on whether VGW’s sites constitute illegal gambling under Florida’s gambling statutes (which include provisions on gambling devices).
The bigger picture for the sweeps industry
These lawsuits may mark a shift toward a more aggressive approach to enforcement against sweepstakes casinos.
Rather than starting with a warning, essentially, with cease-and-desist letters, both Attorneys General have taken the fight directly to court right away.
Cease-and-desist orders have become a familiar first step in sweeps gaming enforcement. Operators sometimes respond by pulling out of a state, while others continue operating. A lawsuit changes things. By going directly to court, Kentucky and Florida have put VGW — and, in Florida, Stake — on the spot. The operators now have to decide whether to defend their business models in court or retreat from those markets. In that sense, you can think of these lawsuits as a cease-and-desist order with much sharper teeth.
As its spokesperson said, VGW clearly intends to fight this lawsuit in Kentucky, which likely means it will do the same in Florida.
No word yet from Stake.
