In 2025, Stake‘s spectacular rise is now facing an unprecedented legal storm. At the heart of a complex network of influencers, game studios, sweepstakes models and offshore foundations, Stake is now the target of a series of lawsuits that could redefine the margins of the online gaming industry.
Birth of an empire and a ticket to the shadows
The story of Stake begins with Ed Craven and Bijan Tehrani, former players in the world of video games who turned their expertise into a bet on the future of crypto entertainment. Back in 2017, their platform was built around a hybrid model: Gold Coins and Sweeps Coins meant to hijack US legislation on online gambling. This model promised colossal revenues in territories with little oversight.
But this blurred line between lottery and gambling is precisely the one that has been exploited. Influential marketing, largely driven by celebrities and streamers, gave Stake credibility and intense media coverage. The model worked as long as the legal shadow remained weak. But today, that veil is falling.
The legal storm
In 2025, Stake found itself at the centre of at least seven lawsuits in the United States, targeting not only the corporate entity, but also its founders, promoters and even its suppliers.
California: the emblematic complaint
In August 2025, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office filed a civil action against Stake.US, Ed Craven, Bijan Tehrani and several major games suppliers (Evolution, Pragmatic Play, Hacksaw, Red Tiger, NetEnt, etc.) for illegal casino operations disguised as sweepstakes.
The complaint calls for the reimbursement of losses to Californian consumers, dissuasive penalties and an injunction to stop all promotion in the State. It accuses Stake of false advertising, unfair competition and deception by concealing the true nature of the product.
Missouri: what are Drake and Adin Ross risking?
In October 2025, a class action lawsuit filed in Missouri targets Stake.US, rapper Drake and streamer Adin Ross: they are accused of promoting an illegal casino disguised as a social game, misleading consumers and normalising betting.
According to the complaint, the influencers often did not use their own money during broadcasts – a house money mechanism made available by Stake – while presenting their activity as authentic.
Other states: Illinois, Alabama, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Minnesota
Similar lawsuits are multiplying:
- In Minnesota, a complaint alleges that the dual currency model (Gold Coins / Stake Cash) constitutes disguised gambling and violates local gambling laws.
- In Illinois, Alabama, Massachusetts and South Carolina, accusations of deceptive practices, non-disclosure of risks and unauthorised activities are piling up.
All in all, this litigation network is trying to pierce the corporate veil and reach the most upstream functions of the Stake ecosystem.
Founders and suppliers in the firing line
Until now, the co-founders have been relatively protected behind offshore structures. But the recent lawsuits name them personally. The Californian complaint describes them as responsible for the overall strategy, guilty of facilitating or tolerating the violation of local laws.
At the same time, game suppliers such as Evolution, Hacksaw and Pragmatic Play are included as co-defendants, accused of having supplied content and technical support knowing (or wilfully ignoring) the illegal use that was being made of it. If successful, this strategy could redefine the responsibility of studios in the iGaming industry, imposing a strict duty of care on partner platforms.
The veil of the sweepstakes is torn
At the heart of the dispute is Stake US’s marketing model. It is based on an often-contested distinction between ‘free games’ and ‘games for real money’. Officially, users can receive free tokens without having to make a purchase. In reality, almost all users buy Gold Coins (and by extension Sweeps Coins) to play and then convert their winnings.
The authorities are now considering the possibility that sweepstakes casinos could themselves be reclassified as unauthorised games of chance, breaking the legal basis on which Stake was founded.
Falling deposits: financial alarm bells ring
Financial signals are accompanying the legal storm. According to data shared by Dominic Sawyer (Tequity / Tanzanite), between 20 and 27 October 2025, total deposits on Stake fell by 22.5% (from $394.4m to $305.5m). Even more spectacularly, Stake US saw a collapse of 82.3%, from $81.8m to $14.5m.
Even if these figures are not validated by Stake, they reflect a precipitous decline in confidence. For a model that relies entirely on high-speed transaction volumes, such a drop could undermine liquidity and affiliate commissions, and compromise the model as a whole.
The Stake equation: sustainability or collapse?
Stake is now at a crossroads. Faced with a growing number of disputes, the silence of Craven, Tehrani and promoters such as Drake contrasts with the aggressiveness of the cases filed: no serious comment has been published to date. Behind the scenes, some partners are withdrawing their support and affiliate networks are beginning to dissociate their platforms from Stake. The brand, once seen as innovative, is seeing its associative credentials eroded.
To survive, Stake will probably have to consider a major structural overhaul: clarifying its legal channels, obtaining credible licences, restricting risky marketing relationships. But the scale of the challenge is such that there are serious doubts as to whether the platform can bounce back before it loses public and regulatory support.