Sweepstakes casinos · Brief · 6 min read
Sweepstakes casinos: Florida sues the operators and their payment processors
On August 19, Florida’s Attorney General sued VGW and Stake.us, and named five payment companies as co-defendants under a 1951 gambling-loss statute. What the complaints allege, what they do not, and what it changes for vendors.
On August 19, 2026, Florida’s Attorney General filed two complaints in Hillsborough County Circuit Court, one against the VGW group (Chumba Casino, LuckyLand, Global Poker) and one against the group behind Stake.us. Both also name the companies that move the money. That is the change for anyone who builds or serves this market: a state with no sweepstakes statute has sued payment vendors directly, under a gambling-loss statute enacted in 1951.
Attorney General James Uthmeier announced the filing of two lawsuits against the operators of major online “sweepstakes” casinos—including Stake and VGW’s Chumba Casino, LuckyLand, and Global Poker—and the payment processors that enable them.
The VGW complaint names Yodlee, Trustly and Worldpay; the Stake complaint names Praxis Tech and Breeze Labs Payments. Kentucky’s June 17 complaint against VGW, the closest precedent, named VGW entities and fifty unnamed John Does, and no payment company. Everything below is the Attorney General’s allegation. A complaint decides nothing, and each defendant has its own answer to give.
The operator’s position, in its own rules
Chumba’s current Sweeps Rules state the model directly: play needs no purchase, and the prize currency is given away rather than sold.
NO PURCHASE OR PAYMENT NECESSARY TO PARTICIPATE. A PURCHASE OR PAYMENT OF ANY KIND WILL NOT INCREASE AN ELIGIBLE PARTICIPANT’S CHANCES OF WINNING. … Chumba Casino also gives away sweepstakes entries referred to as “Sweeps Coins” as set out in these Sweeps Rules. Sweeps Coins can be used to Participate in Promotional Play for a chance to win further Sweeps Coins which are redeemable for real prizes.
VGW’s LuckyLand Slots, one of the brands in Florida’s complaint, as its public lobby appears: a Gold Coin pack offered with free Sweeps Coins.
Florida’s answer: the purchase is the consideration
Florida has no statute written for sweepstakes casinos, so the complaint relies on the general gambling chapter, Chapter 849. It reads the Gold Coin package as a purchase of the prize coin:
Participation in the games offered in the VGW Defendants’ sweepstakes casinos constitutes illegal gambling under Florida law because the players provide consideration (e.g., purchase Sweeps Coins and wager the Sweeps Coins) and by an element of chance (e.g., by spinning a virtual slot machine or playing a blackjack hand) create a right to some things of value
The complaint also pleads Florida’s slot-machine definition, which carries a presumption built around payment:
(3) There is a rebuttable presumption that a device, system, or network is a prohibited slot machine or device if it is used to display images of games of chance and is part of a scheme involving any payment or donation of money or its equivalent and awarding anything of value.
The presumption is rebuttable. Whether selling Gold Coins with Sweeps Coins included makes the prize play “part of a scheme involving any payment” is the question the free method of entry is built to answer, and the court has not reached it.
What changes: the vendor is a defendant
The processors are in the case through § 849.29, which lists who must repay gambling losses. The list is not limited to the house:
The following persons shall be jointly and severally liable for the items which are authorized by this act to be sued for and recovered, and any suit brought under the authorization of this act may be brought against all or any of such persons, to wit: The winner of the money or property lost in the gambling transaction; … whoever promotes, sets up or conducts the gambling transaction in which the loss occurs or has an interest in it as backer, vendor, owner or otherwise;
The complaint describes each processor’s role (Yodlee links bank accounts, Trustly moves the funds, Worldpay processes card payments) and then puts that role in the statute’s words. It adds a knowledge allegation that rests on other states’ actions:
In other words, Worldpay sets up and conducts the gambling transactions that occur on the VGW Defendants’ platforms. … Yodlee, Trustly, and Worldpay knew, or were willfully blind to the fact, that VGW’s sweepstakes casinos had been the subject of enforcement actions, cease and desist letters, and other regulatory actions by state gaming regulators and attorneys general, resulting in VGW’s withdrawal from multiple jurisdictions.
“Sets up and conducts” tracks § 849.29. The notice theory treats one state’s letters and exits as a warning to vendors serving the operator in every other state.
Two limits keep the processor claim narrower than the headlines. First, the processors are sued on one count, not two. Civil penalties under Florida’s deceptive-practices act (up to $10,000 per willful violation, $15,000 where seniors or consumers with disabilities are involved) are sought from the operators alone. The Stake complaint is built the same way.
COUNT I: FORFEITURE AND RECOVERY OF MONIES LOST GAMBLING UNDER § 849.12, FLA. STAT. AND § 849.29, FLA. STAT. (Against All Defendants) … COUNT II: VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT (Against the VGW Defendants)
Second, § 849.29 depends on a gambling transaction. If the court holds that the sweepstakes model is not gambling under Chapter 849, Count I fails against every defendant. The vendor’s exposure rises and falls with the operator’s defense.
How it compares with the new statutes
California’s AB 831 and New York’s § 912 reach payment processors by name, California only for knowing and willful support, New York without a knowledge element. Florida’s route needs no new statute and seeks recovery of losses, not a fine. It is also only a claim until a court accepts it. The theory is portable, though: Kentucky’s complaint pleads its own loss-recovery statute (KRS § 372.010) against VGW, and it names no vendor yet.
Where the operator’s rules already meet the payment chain
Chumba’s rules route prize money back through the rail the player paid on, carry a Florida-specific prize cap, and reserve limits for its suppliers’ requirements:
Where an Eligible Participant has chosen to redeem prizes for cash, the payment will be made in USD to the financial account or online wallet from which the Eligible Participant purchased Gold Coins … In Florida, the maximum redemption value of a Sweeps Coins prize won on any one spin or play, via an Eligible Participant’s participation in the Sweepstakes is US$5,000. … Sponsor/Promoter reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to limit an Eligible Participant’s redemption of Sweeps Coins to US$10,000 per day or any other amount over any time that Sponsor/Promoter considers necessary to satisfy its regulatory obligations or the requirements of its partners and suppliers.
The same rails carry money in and prizes out, which is the two-way flow the complaint describes. The Florida cap is Chumba’s own term; the rules do not say why it exists.
What a builder does with this
- Payment vendors: underwrite the operator’s legal position state by state, not only its licenses and chargeback rates. Florida pleads that other states’ letters and exits put processors on notice, so keep a record of the analysis you relied on and when you revisited it.
- Operators: map every vendor that touches the money (account linking, transfers, card acquiring, payouts). Each is now a named-defendant risk in Florida, so contracts should settle who bears defense costs and how a vendor exits a state in an orderly way.
- Everyone: watch the first ruling on Count I. Whether § 849.29 reaches a processor, and whether the free method of entry rebuts § 849.16(3), are both open, and the answers set vendor exposure in Florida.
Florida has not changed its law. It has asked a court to read a 1951 statute to reach the payment chain, and until that court rules, the sweepstakes model remains contested in Florida rather than decided.