A group of plaintiffs has initiated a proposed class action lawsuit against Virtual Gaming Worlds (VGW), claiming that the company operates illegal online gambling platforms. This case is notable because the plaintiffs are suing on behalf of their spouses, which could potentially enhance their chances of success in court. The lawsuit was filed on April 28th in the US District Court for the District of Montana. It involves five plaintiffs from Montana, Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.
They allege that VGW’s platforms, such as Chumba Casino, LuckyLand Slots, and Global Poker, violate gambling laws by offering games of chance in states where such activities are prohibited. For instance, Courtney Brown, the spouse of plaintiff John Brown, reportedly lost $33,600 between September 2024 and March 2025 on VGW’s sweepstakes casinos, while other plaintiffs noted smaller losses. VGW utilizes a dual currency format in its operations, which allows it to operate outside traditional gambling laws. Players wager virtual currency—often known as Sweepstakes Coins—that can be redeemed for real money.
This model, which was pioneered by VGW and Chumba Casino in 2012, has been a target for numerous challenges and lawsuits over the years. This lawsuit is not VGW’s only legal predicament. Another case, Eric A. Knapp v VGW, recently transferred to Delaware state court. Meanwhile, VGW ended its operations in Delaware after a cease and desist order from the state’s gaming regulator.
There is also mounting pressure from state lawmakers aiming to regulate sweepstakes operators more stringently. The latest plaintiffs are invoking local anti-gambling laws in their attempt to recover losses incurred through VGW’s platforms. However, proving that VGW’s sweepstakes model fits within the parameters of illegal gambling will pose a significant challenge. While the spouse-based strategy is innovative, VGW is likely to maintain that its operations comply with sweepstakes law.
The defendant is required to respond by May 21st, and the plaintiffs face an uphill battle reminiscent of previous cases against sweepstakes operators.