Filed on 31 December 2025 in Virginia, the lawsuit alleges that the pair misled viewers during livestreamed gambling sessions by presenting the activity as personal risk-taking when the funds were allegedly supplied by Stake.
Allegations of misleading livestream content
The plaintiffs, LaShawnna Ridley and Tiffany Hines, claim that Drake and Ross led audiences to believe they were gambling with their own money during livestreams. According to the complaint, the cryptocurrency used was provided by the platform itself.
The lawsuit also alleges that a $100,000 cryptocurrency tip was used to manipulate livestream engagement metrics and artificially amplify interest in Drake’s music. “The two have engaged in live-streamed gambling, wagering large sums of money that was provided surreptitiously by Stake,” the suit reads. “In other words, though Drake and Ross purported to be gambling with their own Stake Cash, it was in fact provided to them by the house.”
A third defendant, George Nguyen, is named in the filing and is alleged to have acted as an intermediary in converting cryptocurrency to cash and coordinating online promotion. The plaintiffs allege violations under the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, as well as Virginia consumer protection laws. Remedies sought include treble damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits, and legal costs.
Previous case filed in Missouri
The Virginia lawsuit follows a similar class-action case filed in Missouri in October 2025, which also alleged deceptive marketing practices related to gambling promotion and undisclosed financial relationships. Neither Drake nor Ross has commented publicly on either case. Stake has previously denied wrongdoing in relation to its influencer marketing practices.
Implications for the UK gambling industry
While the legal action is taking place in the US, the case has potential relevance for the UK gambling sector, where influencer-led marketing is subject to strict regulation under the Gambling Act 2005.
The UK Gambling Commission requires gambling advertising to be transparent, socially responsible, and not misleading. Influencer promotions must clearly disclose paid partnerships and ensure content is appropriately age- and geo-restricted. The Advertising Standards Authority has also increased scrutiny of influencer content in recent years, particularly where it may appeal to younger audiences or blur the distinction between entertainment and gambling.
Regulatory pressure continues to build
New UKGC rules introduced on 19 December 2025, including restrictions on bonus mechanics and mixed-product promotions, reflect a wider regulatory focus on transparency and consumer protection. Although these reforms do not directly target influencer marketing, the lawsuits against Drake and Ross underline the risks associated with high-profile promotional activity that may misrepresent gambling participation. For UK-licensed operators, the cases serve as a reminder that any failure to clearly disclose commercial arrangements or accurately present gambling risk could attract regulatory and reputational consequences.
The post Drake and Adin Ross face second US lawsuit over Stake promotions appeared first on G3 Newswire.
Filed on 31 December 2025 in Virginia, the lawsuit alleges that the pair misled viewers during livestreamed gambling sessions by presenting the activity as personal risk-taking when the funds were allegedly supplied by Stake. Allegations of misleading livestream content The plaintiffs, LaShawnna Ridley and Tiffany Hines, claim that Drake and Ross led audiences to believe…
The post Drake and Adin Ross face second US lawsuit over Stake promotions appeared first on G3 Newswire.