In 2026, Drake is entangled in a new legal dispute. The Canadian musician is implicated in a U.S. class-action lawsuit that claims he and others utilized funds from a betting website to obscure money transactions, subsequently inflating his music streaming numbers artificially. This lawsuit revolves around Stake.us, the U.S. platform for the Curaçao-based online betting operator Stake, frequently endorsed by Drake on his social media channels.
The lawsuit alleges that Drake, whose real name is Aubrey Graham, played a central role in the scheme, collaborating with social media influencer Adin Ross. Both individuals purportedly received payment to promote the platform by engaging in gambling activities with virtual currencies discreetly provided by Stake.
It should be noted that none of these claims have been verified in court, and neither Drake nor Stake representatives have responded to requests for comments. The plaintiff’s legal team is demanding a jury trial and seeking damages and legal expenses amounting to at least $5 million USD.
The legal action was initiated on December 31, 2025, in a Virginia court on behalf of LaShawnna Ridley, Tiffany Hines, and all Stake.us users as plaintiffs. Additionally, George Nguyen is mentioned as a defendant, allegedly acting as a facilitator and operational intermediary.
According to the lawsuit, Stake.us is described as an illicit online betting platform created to circumvent restrictions following the ban on Stake.com’s U.S. operations. Despite being promoted as a “social casino” without real-money gambling, the platform employs “Stake Cash,” convertible to cryptocurrency or digital vouchers, essentially constituting real currency.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs claim that Drake, Ross, and Nguyen exploit the casino’s “tipping” feature to transfer funds among themselves, with some of these funds allegedly used to manipulate streaming services like Spotify. The lawsuit asserts that their actions led to the generation of fake streams for Drake’s music, distorting popularity metrics, playlist rankings, and influencing royalty payments and recommendations.
Ultimately, the lawsuit contends that their practices undermined genuine artists, restricted consumers’ access to authentic content, and compromised the integrity of curated music streaming experiences.