A superstar rapper, a livestream celebrity, and an online casino are now at the center of a sweeping racketeering case that claims an illegal gambling operation bankrolled billions of fake music streams. A federal civil RICO lawsuit filed in Virginia on December 31, 2025, accuses Drake, Adin Ross, Stake.us, and associate George Nguyen of running an enterprise that defrauded potentially millions of U.S. consumers and manipulated Spotify’s ecosystem at scale.
Architect of an Alleged Enterprise
According to the complaint, Drake, 39, did not operate Stake.us directly but is described as being “at the center of the operation” and its primary financial beneficiary. Court filings allege he received about $100 million per year from Stake in a sponsorship arrangement that both legitimized the platform and served as a reward within the purported racketeering scheme.
The lawsuit dates back to 2022, when Drake began heavily promoting Stake through Instagram posts and Kick livestreams, placing high-profile wagers and drawing massive online audiences. One filing cites a month in which his wagering activity was publicly documented at $124.5 million, positioning him as the face of high-stakes online betting for millions of fans, including younger viewers.
Stake.us is presented to customers as a “social casino” where users purchase virtual Gold Coins to play casino-style games that are ostensibly for entertainment only. Regulators accepted this framing. The lawsuit, however, argues Stake.us is effectively Stake.com — a platform previously barred from the U.S. market — operating under a new label. In addition to Gold Coins, the site offers “Stake Cash,” which is bundled into purchases and bonuses and can be converted into real money after meeting wagering requirements.
Inside the Casino and the Cash Flows
Central to the complaint is Stake’s “tipping” feature, a user-to-user transfer system that plaintiffs describe as “wholly unregulated” and operating beyond the view of financial authorities. The lawsuit likens this mechanism to a private money transfer network with no conventional oversight, reporting obligations, or standard monitoring.
Court filings detail large transfers allegedly funneled through this system between high-profile promoters and Nguyen. They reference a $100,000 transfer from Ross to Drake in 2023, a car valued at $220,000 provided by Stake to Ross, and a December 2024 “Drizzmas Giveaway” livestream as examples of the financial activity surrounding the platform’s promotional ecosystem.
The complaint contends that the gambling livestreams watched by millions were effectively “theater.” Drake and Ross were allegedly staking house money supplied by Stake rather than risking their own funds, making the big wins seen on camera a marketing tool rather than authentic betting outcomes. Viewers — including underage and young adult audiences following Ross’s streams — were not told that the wagers were bankrolled by the company, the plaintiffs argue, and losses incurred by ordinary users ultimately underwrote the spectacle.
From Chips to Streams
Beyond gambling, the case pushes into new territory by tying alleged casino proceeds to large-scale streaming manipulation. The lawsuit claims Drake and Ross used Stake’s tipping system and other channels to route funds to Nguyen, who is described as coordinating bot vendors, streaming farms, and “clipping channels” that amplified Drake’s presence on Spotify.
Plaintiffs assert that this network generated billions of fraudulent plays for Drake’s catalog since 2022, inflating his streaming numbers, influencing algorithmic recommendations, and crowding out competing artists. Bots allegedly boosted his placement in playlists and discovery tools, creating the appearance of overwhelming organic popularity.
If even a portion of these streams are proved artificial, the complaint argues, they would represent tens of millions of dollars in royalties Drake was not entitled to receive, while also distorting a core metric used by labels, platforms, and artists to make business decisions.
Consumers, Plaintiffs, and RICO Stakes
The Virginia case is brought as a nationwide class action led by two Virginia residents, LaShawnna Ridley and Tiffany Hines, who say they lost real money on Stake.us after believing it was legal, safe, and properly regulated. They allege they relied in part on Drake’s involvement as a signal of legitimacy. The proposed class encompasses all U.S. users of Stake.us, potentially reaching into the millions.
Plaintiffs have invoked the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a statute typically associated with organized crime. By using civil RICO, they argue that Stake, Drake, Ross, and Nguyen functioned as a coordinated criminal enterprise rather than as isolated parties engaged in misleading promotion. Under RICO, any damages awarded are automatically tripled, which could dramatically increase the financial consequences if the defendants are found liable.
The filing cites public social media posts and archived livestreams featuring Drake and Ross gambling on Stake.us, along with records of valuable gifts and digital transfers, as part of what it calls a substantial paper and digital trail. It also references “leaked communications” involving Nguyen and bot providers, which purportedly show the orchestration of streaming manipulation campaigns.
Industry Precedent and What Comes Next
The lawsuit arrives as regulators increase scrutiny of online gambling and sweepstakes-style platforms. California enacted legislation in 2025 aimed at such operations, including services resembling Stake.us. The Virginia case also follows a separate lawsuit filed in Missouri on October 27, 2025, which targets Drake and Ross for promoting gambling under state consumer protection laws, although that action does not rely on RICO. A plaintiff victory in Missouri could strengthen pressure for settlement in Virginia by establishing an early liability benchmark.
Plaintiffs in Virginia initially seek $5 million in damages, but the complaint emphasizes that figure as a starting point for their claim. With treble damages and potential restitution for all affected Stake.us users, total exposure could reach hundreds of millions of dollars. The filing further seeks disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains, including the reported $100 million annual Stake deal tied to Drake.
As of early January 2026, Drake’s representatives and Stake co-founder Ed Craven have declined public comment. Legal experts anticipate that defense teams will respond with motions to dismiss, challenging the sufficiency of the complaint, jurisdiction, and standing, which could delay discovery. If the case proceeds, pretrial discovery could extend over a year, potentially opening internal communications, financial records, and platform data to court scrutiny.
Beyond individual liability, the case tests the boundaries of responsibility for public figures promoting gambling platforms and raises broader questions about the integrity of digital music metrics. If plaintiffs succeed in tying a major artist’s career milestones to systematic fraud funded by illegal gambling, it could reshape how celebrities approach high-risk brand partnerships — and how audiences view the numbers that define success in streaming-era music.
Sources:
Drake hit with RICO lawsuit alleging illegal gambling operation and streaming manipulation, Music Business Worldwide, January 4, 2026
Impresa Legal Group Files RICO Lawsuit Against Stake, Drake, Adin Ross, and George Nguyen,Morningstar/PR Newswire, January 2, 2026
Drake Accused of Funding Fake Spotify Streams in Latest Gambling Lawsuit, Billboard, January 4, 2026
Drake faces RICO lawsuit alleging illegal gambling promotion, RouteNote Blog, January 4, 2026
Drake faces U.S. lawsuit over ties to online gambling firm, CBC News, January 2, 2026
Drake accused of using an online gambling platform to inflate play counts in music, NBC News, January 2, 2026