Drake Lawsuit Centres on Claims of Casino-Linked Streaming Manipulation

A new class-action lawsuit filed in a US federal court in Virginia is raising unusual questions at the intersection of online gambling and digital music. At the heart of the case are claims that funds associated with online casino activity were later used to influence music-streaming engagement associated with Drake, the world-famous Canadian music artist.

The lawsuit names Drake, streamer Adin Ross, and an Australian-based associate, alleging their involvement in a coordinated scheme that encouraged consumers to gamble and then redirected casino-linked funds toward artificial amplification of music streams.

Focus of the Lawsuit: Streaming Metrics, Not Just Gambling

While the case includes allegations of aggressive gambling promotion, the plaintiffs place particular emphasis on what they claim followed those promotions. According to the filing, funds generated through gambling activity on Stake.us were later tied to organised efforts designed to inflate streaming metrics for Drake’s music across major platforms.

The lawsuit alleges these efforts exceeded organic listener behaviour and instead relied on coordinated amplification strategies intended to increase play counts and visibility. The plaintiffs argue that this created misleading signals regarding popularity and engagement, potentially influencing recommendation systems and curated music-discovery features.

The filing does not accuse music streaming platforms themselves of wrongdoing. Instead, it focuses on the alleged actions of individuals, according to the plaintiffs, who sought to manipulate engagement indicators using funds derived from casino-related activity.

Stake.Us and Sweepstake Casinos

Stake.com is an online casino brand founded in 2017 by Australian entrepreneurs and licensed and operated in offshore jurisdictions. The brand has expanded globally through high-profile influencer partnerships, such as Drake, and livestream marketing.

The lawsuit concerns Stake’s U.S. platform, which operates very differently from real-money online casinos in Australia. Stake.us is a sweepstakes casino based on virtual coins and a redeemable currency known as Stake Cash.

How Gambling Promotion Fits Into the Claims

The lawsuit was filed by two Virginia residents who say they were drawn into gambling after repeated exposure to livestreamed betting sessions, giveaways, and promotional content tied to Drake and Ross. According to the plaintiffs, this content framed gambling as entertainment while downplaying financial risks.

They allege they incurred losses after wagering with the platform’s redeemable currency and claim they would not have participated absent the visibility and influence of the promotions.

Platform Features and Alleged Fund Movement

Another key aspect of the filing concerns the alleged movement of funds within the casino ecosystem. The plaintiffs allege that certain platform features were used to transfer value between accounts in a manner that resembled informal money transfers rather than standard gambling transactions.

According to the lawsuit, funds circulating through these channels were later linked to online activity unrelated to gambling, including efforts related to music promotion and audience amplification.

The Australian-based Associate Named in the Case

The third individual named in the lawsuit, Australian national George Nguyen, is described as playing a coordinating role behind the scenes. The plaintiffs allege he handled cryptocurrency transactions associated with the platform and helped organise online promotion efforts, including social media clipping and narrative amplification across multiple channels.

The filing states that communications and transaction records referenced in the lawsuit indicate that this activity dates back several years.

What the Plaintiffs Are Seeking

The lawsuit aims to represent Virginia residents who lost money wagering with Stake Cash within the past three years. Legal claims include alleged violations of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act and federal racketeering laws under the RICO statute.

The plaintiffs argue that they were induced to register and transact on the platform by promotional activity associated with the named defendants, and that the alleged streaming manipulation formed part of a broader pattern of coordinated conduct.

Why the Case Has Wider Implications

Although the allegations have not been tested in court, the case stands out for linking online gambling promotion with claims of manipulated digital music engagement. It adds to broader scrutiny of celebrity-backed casino marketing and raises questions about how funds flow between entertainment platforms and gambling ecosystems. The case continues.