Alabama is fast becoming one of the most popular places in the US to file a lawsuit against sweepstakes casinos, with multiple proposed class actions underway.
As iGaming lawyer Daniel Wallach recently reported, there are 13 active lawsuits against sweeps companies in the Yellowhammer State in total, with 11 being filed in the last month alone.
Active Lawsuits Against Sweepstakes Casinos in Alabama
- Hester v. A1 Development LLC, filed June 26 2025 – class action
- Hester v. Blazesoft Ltd., filed June 26 2025 – class action
- Bishop v. Woopla Inc., filed June 23 2025 – class action
- Pilati v. MW Services Ltd., filed June 18 2025 – class action
- Jackson v. ARB Gaming LLC, filed June 18 2025 – class action
- Gann v. Sunflower Ltd., Sunflower Technology Inc., filed June 9 2025 – class action
- Sumerel v. High 5 Games LLC, filed June 9 2025 – class action
- Pilati v. Realplay Tech Inc., filed June 9 2025 – class action
- Gann v. Huuuge Inc., filed June 6 2025 – class action
- Seal v. VGW Ltd., filed June 6 2025 – class action
- Pilati v. Yellow Social Interactive Ltd., filed June 6 2025 – class action
- Hall v. Sweepsteaks Limited, filed May 2 2025 – loss-recovery statute
- Seal v. VGW Ltd., filed Sept. 29 2023 – loss-recovery statute
Back in May we first reported on Hall v. Sweepsteaks Limited, a case where plaintiff and Alabama resident Laura Hall is seeking to recover losses from the Stake.us platform.
Since then, there’s been a flurry of class actions filed against various sweeps operators like A1 Development, Blazesoft, and ARB Gaming. However, some of these cases are filed by the same plaintiff, meaning there are only 8 different plaintiffs overall.
Plaintiffs in cases like these generally claim that sweepstakes casinos are illegal as they offer something of value via their dual-currency format (Gold Coins and Sweepstakes Coins), fulfilling the three elements necessary to define something as gambling: prize, chance, and consideration.
Operators argue that this isn’t the case, as, while the Sweepstakes Coins can be redeemed for cash prizes, they are also awarded as part of promotions, essentially enabling the player to play for free if they so choose. They also can’t be bought directly, offered for free as part of coin bundles where the user buys Gold Coins. This, they argue, removes the concept of ‘consideration’. Players can also play for free by playing only with Gold Coins, like at many pure social casinos.
It’s an argument that has been tried many times over the last few years in various states, and still, no plaintiff has been able to win such a case. Some out-of-court settlements have reportedly been agreed, but no firm legal precedent has ever been set.
Could Alabama Lawsuits Succeed Against Sweepstakes Casinos?
Alabama is seen as a strict, anti-gambling jurisdiction because:
- There is no state-regulated online gambling (no online sports betting, iGaming, or online lottery).
- There are no commercial casinos, only a few tribal venues.
- There is no state lottery – Alabama is one of only five states without this.
- It has a civil remedy for losses, a unique recovery statute (Ala. Code § 8-1-150) that allows individuals to sue to recover illegal gambling losses.
All that said, the plaintiff generally has to have gambled from Alabama, and while class actions might broaden the number of claimants, those claimants would still need to have placed bets while physically located in Alabama.
On top of that, a cursory glance at the terms of service from the vast majority of sweepstakes operators, including the ones mentioned above, shows that they contain arbitration and class action waiver agreements. This means that anyone who signs up to play on these platforms waives their right to sue the company in court, both as an individual plaintiff and as part of a class action lawsuit.
Instead, disputes must be resolved through binding individual arbitration, which prevents collective legal action and limits players to pursuing claims solely on a case-by-case basis. This setup reduces the plaintiff’s leverage and makes it more difficult to challenge these operators.
We’ve seen these clauses come into play many times before, like in the case of Dennis Boyle v. Sweepsteaks Limited in California earlier this year. Therefore, despite Alabama’s strict anti-gambling laws, something unprecedented will have to take place if any of the active cases are to progress in a meaningful way.
Similar Anti-Sweepstakes Efforts in Other States
Despite the mounting legal pressures, the sweepstakes casino industry continues to demonstrate growth and resilience. Year after year, these platforms attract millions of players across the US, offering a unique form of entertainment that blends social gaming with the chance to win real prizes, often in jurisdictions where traditional online gambling remains restricted.
The real legal challenge for the industry is arriving in the form of new anti-sweeps legislation and cease and desist orders from state gaming regulators and attorney generals. So far this year, Montana, Connecticut, and Nevada have passed anti-sweeps legislation, with states like Louisiana, New York, and Mississippi serving up C&Ds to numerous operators.
While Alabama experiences a surge in private lawsuits, these challenges are unlikely to hinder the industry’s momentum anytime soon.
Author: Joseph Allen
Updated:
