While the California Senate is considering a bill that could place new restrictions on casino-style, sweepstakes-based online games, prosecutors in the state’s most populous county are not waiting to see whether new legislation on the topic is enshrined. On Thursday, the state of California filed a civil lawsuit against two operators of websites with such games and companies that supply those websites.
This complaint represents an escalation of previous civil actions targeting sweepstakes casinos, as the matter is pursued by a government instead of an individual. Additionally, the naming of several high-profile online gambling vendors makes this lawsuit potentially impactful.
California targets Kick, Stake, and numerous service providers
According to the Aug. 28, 2025, filing in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, defendants in the lawsuit include Sweepsteaks Ltd., which operates Stake.us. The list of service providers that Stake has worked with includes Kick, a streaming service designed as an alternative to Amazon’s Twitch.
Most of the other defendants in California v. Sweepsteaks Ltd, et al are providers of games and other software associated with online casino play:
- Big Time Gaming
- Evolution
- Hacksaw Gaming
- NetEnt
- No Limit City
- Pragmatic Play
- Red Tiger Gaming
The complaint accuses the defendants of collaborating to operate an illegal gambling ring, allowing people in California to take part. In response, the brief asks the court to issue injunctions against the operations and impose penalties on the defendants.
While this is not the first time Stake has faced civil litigation with allegations of illegal gambling, it is the first time that a state government in the United States has levied such an allegation. The number of service providers named in the suit carries weight as well.
California lawsuit raises stakes for defendants
Numerous individuals have attempted to initiate class-action lawsuits against operators of sweepstakes casinos across the United States. In most cases to date, those complaints have been dismissed due to arbitration clauses in the terms of use for the websites.
California v. Sweepsteaks Ltd, et al changes the game by circumventing that argument, as the plaintiff in this case is not an individual who has used the site. Additionally, the profile of the named providers plays a part in the potential gravity of the case.
The named vendors are some of the biggest suppliers for not only sweepstakes casinos but real-money online casino brands in U.S. jurisdictions as well. Companies like Evolution are publicly traded corporations, which complicates these proceedings for them.
California’s lawsuit also names several individuals who have stakes in the companies as defendants, making them potentially personally liable for any legal violations that prosecutors are able to convince the court are legitimate. In response to previous enforcement actions, Stake has stopped servicing players in certain U.S. jurisdictions. That has not been the case uniformly, though.
Amid debates on whether the state should ban sweepstakes casinos in Sacramento, prosecutors in Los Angeles County are taking matters into their hands. Their activities could create a new status quo for not only operators of those websites but also the companies that work with them.
