Crypto Gambling Promotions at Center of Lawsuit Against Drake

Source: Coindoo Original Title: Crypto Gambling Promotions at Center of Lawsuit Against Drake Original Link: A U.S. class action lawsuit has placed Drake at the center of allegations linking illegal crypto gambling, livestream promotion, and artificial manipulation of music streaming metrics.

The suit also names livestream personalities Adin Ross and George Nguyen as co-defendants.

Key takeaways:

• Plaintiffs accuse Drake and prominent streamers of promoting an allegedly illegal crypto casino in the U.S.
• The lawsuit claims gambling promotions were funded by the casino itself to simulate high-stakes wins.
• The case raises broader concerns about influencer accountability and crypto gambling regulation.

Filed by plaintiffs LaShawnna Ridley and Tiffany Hines, the case accuses the defendants of promoting Stake.us, an online gambling platform that allegedly operates illegally across the United States while presenting itself as a compliant “social casino.” The plaintiffs are seeking civil penalties and a court order to halt all promotional activity tied to the platform, claiming they suffered significant financial harm after being encouraged to gamble through celebrity endorsements.

At the center of the complaint is Stake.us’s dual-currency system. While the platform advertises the use of non-monetary “Gold Coins,” it also issues “Stake Cash,” which can be redeemed for cryptocurrency or digital gift cards at a one-to-one ratio with the U.S. dollar. According to the lawsuit, players who lose their Stake Cash are pushed to purchase additional Gold Coins, which are bundled with more Stake Cash, effectively recreating real-money gambling under a different label.

Alleged Livestream Manipulation and Streaming Fraud

The filing further alleges that Stake.us financed gambling livestreams using its own funds, allowing high-profile promoters to wager large sums without personal financial risk. Drake, Ross, and Nguyen are accused of staging these sessions to portray gambling as safe, legal, and lucrative, while the platform saturated social media with promotional content amplifying that message. Drake alone is alleged to have received more than $100 million annually in compensation tied to the arrangement.

More controversially, the lawsuit claims that funds circulating through Stake.us were used for coordinated “tipping” transactions between the defendants. These transfers allegedly helped bankroll automated bot activity designed to inflate Drake’s music streams, artificially boosting visibility and skewing recommendation systems on platforms such as Spotify. The plaintiffs argue that this manipulation distorted royalty calculations and gave Drake an unfair competitive advantage.

Stake.us has rejected the allegations outright, calling the lawsuit baseless and denying the existence of any tipping feature capable of enabling the alleged misconduct. Ross has similarly dismissed the claims, echoing his response to a separate lawsuit filed in Missouri last year. Despite those denials, Ridley and Hines are pursuing $5 million in damages, arguing that Drake’s promotions contributed to gambling losses and increased addiction risks.

The controversy also touches on the broader livestreaming ecosystem. Drake hosted extended gambling streams on Kick, urging viewers to help him close out what he described as his worst gambling year and promising to share a portion of any winnings. Ross, meanwhile, severed ties with Stake.us in 2025 and moved to a rival platform, while continuing to stream on Kick due to his close relationship with its founder, Ed Craven.

Stake.us’s parent company, Easygo, has also denied all allegations, stating it intends to defend the brand against what it describes as misleading claims. As the case proceeds, it raises broader questions about influencer responsibility, the legal boundaries of crypto gambling, and the integrity of digital popularity metrics in an increasingly monetized online attention economy.