Los Angeles sues online casino operator Stake.US for illegal gambling

The FTC isn’t backing down on subscription cancellation policies. Recent actions against Chegg and LA Fitness highlight how serious the agency is about enforcing the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA) and state laws like California’s Auto Renewal Law. In Wiley’s latest blog post, Duane Pozza and Ian Barlow break down what companies need to know – and why now is the time to review your cancellation processes. Read more: https://bit.ly/48a3eec #FTC #ROSCA #ConsumerProtection

🚨 NEWS ALERT: Homes.com and CoStar Group are facing a new legal battle—this time over an alleged breach of contract. REcore Solutions, the vendor for California Regional MLS (CRMLS) licensing services, has filed a lawsuit claiming Homes.com and CoStar failed to pay required fees tied to MLS data usage. REcore says it will terminate Homes.com and HomesPro data feeds as of Nov. 1, 2025. #RealEstateLawsuits #HomesDotCom #CoStar #REcoreSolutions #CRMLS #RealEstateNews #BreachOfContract #RealEstateData #RISMedia #RISMediaPremier https://lnkd.in/eRPz3EwW

I like freebies - don't you? 😀 How many of us have been contacted in recent months by a law firm or claims management company (CMC) telling us we’re potentially owed thousands if we bought a car on finance? And obviously, how they can help us reclaim what’s ‘rightfully ours’ (less, of course, their hefty fee!). 😮 This is despite the FCA estimating that the average pay-out, where a consumer is eligible, is likely to be only into three figures. 🤔 This year alone, 230,000 complaints about unsolicited and unlawful direct marketing practices about motor finance claims have been received by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which has multiple investigations ongoing and is actively considering further regulatory action against several organisations. The FCA isn’t happy either, and has: ‼️ Banned or required amendment of more than 740 misleading adverts by regulated CMCs since January 2024. ‼️ Required two CMCs not to take on new clients or advertise for business until they’re able to prove that they comply with FCA rules. ‼️ Made another two CMCs agree to change their exit fee policies. ‼️ Written (or is about to write) to other CMCs involved in motor finance claims, to reiterate its expectations. ‼️ Required nine law firms (which the FCA doesn’t even regulate!) to provide information about their exit fees, using its powers under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as a ‘public designated enforcer’ under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. (This is the first time the FCA's used these powers.) ‼️ Launched a £1m advertising campaign (on radio, and online) to make people aware they don’t need to use a CMC or law firm to seek motor finance compensation, as they can do it for nothing! 😮 😮 Apparently 40% of consumers still think they NEED to use a CMC or a law firm to get the compensation due to them, and that’s just not correct. That number’s been contributed to by some really sharp advertising practices. But it’s not just the FCA on the warpath: the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), the ICO and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which is itself reviewing advertising practices in this sector, are all collaborating against these sharp practices and misleading promotions. The SRA is investigating 76 law firms involved in high-volume claims and has closed-down five of them, in the interests of public protection. Are the days of a free-for-all in motor finance compensation drawing to an abrupt end? Well, seeing as 40% of consumers think they need CMCs or law firms to get their compensation, probably not! We'll see. The FCA says it’s going to publish its promised consultation on a motor finance redress scheme tomorrow evening. That redress scheme is going to be the correct (and best) way of any consumer who IS entitled to compensation, to get it. Or you could go to a CMC or law firm and pay a large slice of your compensation away. Your choice. I know which one I’d choose; I like free stuff! 😉

California draws the line on grey-market sweepstakes gambling 🎯 Governor Gavin Newsom has signed Assembly Bill 831 (AB 831) into law, officially banning sweepstakes casinos in the state effective 1 January 2026. The law, passed unanimously by both chambers, prohibits not just operators but also their payment processors, platform suppliers, geolocation providers, and media affiliates, with penalties including fines of up to $25,000 or one year in county jail ⚖️. Supported strongly by tribal gaming associations such as CNIGA and the Indian Gaming Association, the bill aims to eliminate what many describe as unregulated gambling disguised as entertainment. Lawmakers say the move protects tribal sovereignty and restores integrity to California’s regulated gaming ecosystem 🌐. However, the Social Gaming Leadership Alliance (SGLA) criticized the bill, warning of job losses and lost tax revenue from an industry estimated to generate $1 billion annually. California now joins states like Montana, Connecticut, and New Jersey in a nationwide crackdown on dual-currency sweepstakes casinos 🚫. #iGamingNewsToday #iGamingRegulation #CaliforniaGaming #SweepstakesCasinos #TribalGaming #OnlineGaming #iGamingTodayWorld

The California sweepstakes ban is now official as Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 831 (AB 831) into law. This legislation bans online sweepstakes casinos in the state, making California the largest US state to outlaw the grey market model. This is a monumental victory for the coalition of Native American tribes and legal operators who argued the platforms facilitated illegal gambling and undermined the integrity of the state’s regulated market. The new law is effective immediately and sends a clear message that the long-running "legal loophole" for sweepstakes casinos is now closed. Read more here: https://lnkd.in/giS5XaHP #California #GamblingRegulation #SweepstakesBan #GovernorNewsom #AB831 #USGaming #TribalGaming #RegulatoryAction

The Cross River State Lotteries and Gaming Agency (CRSLGA) announced an enforcement drive following the enactment of the Cross River State Lotteries and Gaming Agency Law 2025. The legislation, signed by Governor Bassey Otu, empowers the agency to collaborate with firms such as Google to identify, block, and remove unauthorised betting and lottery platforms. Read more: https://lnkd.in/dU_BiWW9

𝐅𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐬𝐲 𝐒𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐔𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐆𝐚𝐦𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠? 𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐓𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐭 “𝐒𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐬” 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐬 Two companies (𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐳𝐳 𝐈𝐧𝐜. and 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐦 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐤𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐤𝐚 𝐈𝐧𝐜.) faced new class action lawsuits last week alleging their fantasy sports and sweepstakes-style contests violate state gambling laws. In California, plaintiffs allege Thrillzz’s “Sweepstakes Sportsbook” mimics real-money sports gambling while falsely marketing itself as legal in California. The lawsuit highlights familiar mechanics: 💧 Users place bets using “Sweeps Coins” 💧 Winnings are redeemable for cash 💧 Thrillzz keeps a portion of the betting pool like a traditional bookmaker 💧 Prizes are determined by chance, not skill In Illinois, Boom Shakalaka faces claims under the state’s Gambling Loss Recovery Act for running a similar fantasy-style platform with cash-based sweepstakes. These aren’t isolated. The same legal theory has been applied this year to: 1. 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐔𝐒 in Mississippi and Illinois 2. 𝐌𝐲𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐞 in California 3. 𝐕𝐆𝐖 𝐆𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 in Kentucky and New Jersey Theories vary by state - but include false advertising, consumer deception, and violations of statutory gambling recovery laws. Are we nearing a tipping point where state regulators and private litigants redraw the line between gamified entertainment and unlawful betting? 👉 Read the Lawsuits: https://lnkd.in/d-_sXezJ https://lnkd.in/dPURhnET #GamblingLitigation #FantasySportsLaw #ConsumerProtection #ClassActionWatch #SweepstakesLaw #EmergingRisks #RainIntelligence

Knives Out...and URLs In! (Or Don't Bring a Knife to a Gunfight...) Microtech Knives sued Outdoors Online, LLC (d/b/a GunBroker.com), alleging that it sold clones of Microtech knives bearing Microtech's registered trademarks on the GunBroker online marketplace. Microtech claimed GunBroker was liable for contributory trademark infringement for facilitating the sales. Microtech may have had facts in its favor, but its poor handling of the situation sunk its case. Mistake 1: Microtech Did Not Provide the "Address" of the Fakes. Microtech only sent a vague warning that counterfeit items were being sold somewhere on the massive platform. What they should have done: provide Gunbroker.com with specific, exact links (URLs) and item numbers for every single listing they wanted removed. The court ruled that a general warning is insufficient to trigger marketplace liability. (This is a redux of Tiffany v. eBay). Mistake 2: Microtech Used the Wrong Mailbox for a Legal Threat. Microtech sent the formal legal notice to Gunbroker.com's generic customer service email (like a "Support" address). The result: Gunbroker's legal department didn't see the notice for weeks, delaying its response and weakening the Microtech's argument that the Gunbroker was slow to act. Mistake 3: Microtech Sued After the Problem Was Fixed. Gunbroker.com quickly removed all listings with the suspicious keywords shortly after receiving the legal notice. The key failure: Microtech filed its lawsuit after the items had already been taken down. The court found that because there were no known, live, infringing items on the site when Microtech sued, they could not prove the Gunbroker.com was currently responsible for ongoing infringement Key lessons for more effective takedown requests: • Be Specific (Provide the Data): A general demand is insufficient; you must give the marketplace specific, actionable details for every infringing listing, including the URL, Item ID, and Seller ID. • Don't Use Customer Service for Legal Notice: Send legal notices to the company's designated legal or IP contact, not a generic customer service mailbox, as this causes delays in review. • Act Promptly: Notify the marketplace of infringement as soon as you discover it; a long delay weakens your case. • Cooperate When Contacted: If the marketplace's legal team contacts you and requests specific examples or details, provide them immediately.

Litigation Funders are now behind lawsuits against gambling entities. Isn't that ironic, Alanis? Behind some of the lawsuits, according to the article, is Veridis Management LLC, and Maximillian Amster. Verdis' website is www.veridismgmt.com. "The suits represent a new avenue for litigation finance, an industry in which investors take something of a gamble themselves and pay for the cost of lawsuits with the hope that they gain a piece of any legal reward that results. The fast growing, though niche, industry has mainly funneled cash to more conventional areas of the law, such as intellectual property and product liability." Thanks again, Emily Siegel and Bloomberg Law for this insightful reporting. Lawmakers must be so glad that investment funds are there to sue on behalf of LLCs. 🙄 These suits will be fun to follow.

⚖️ Evolution and Playtech this week took an ongoing dispute public; but what could the case mean for the wider gambling industry? We asked legal professionals. https://lnkd.in/dTxc6DuN