Drake And Adin Ross Made Millions Teaching Kids How To Develop Gambling Addictions
Drake and Adin Ross didn't just promote an online casino. According to a new federal lawsuit filed in Virginia, they built a systematic operation to normalize illegal gambling to millions of young viewers, many of them teenagers. While they cashed checks that allegedly totaled over $100 million combined, parents across America are discovering their kids have developed real gambling addictions that cost real money.
The December 31, 2025 class action lawsuit reveals something darker than celebrity endorsements gone wrong. It alleges Drake and Ross knowingly promoted Stake, described in court documents as operating "one of the largest and most profitable illegal online casinos," using house money disguised as their own funds. They livestreamed themselves betting massive sums that Stake secretly provided, creating the illusion of risk while actually performing risk-free theater.
For the teenagers and young adults watching, this wasn't entertainment. It was an instruction manual for developing one of the most dangerous addictions in existence, one that research shows leads to the highest suicide rate among all forms of addiction.
The Audience Nobody Wants to Acknowledge
Adin Ross's viewership skews devastatingly young. Research on his demographic shows the average age of his viewers falls between 13 to 24 years old, with a substantial portion being teenagers. His audience is predominantly male, matches the exact demographic most vulnerable to gambling addiction, and watches him for hours at a time.
Ross himself has claimed his average viewer age is 20 to 22, but that's an average. For every 24-year-old watching, there's a 16-year-old also tuned in. The youngest viewers don't get filtered out. They're part of the math that creates that average, which means Ross's streams reach well into middle and high school age ranges.
Drake's influence extends even broader. As one of the most successful rappers of all time with over 80 million records sold, his reach spans generations. When he livestreams gambling sessions with Ross, he's not just reaching Ross's teenage audience. He's bringing his own massive following, including young fans who grew up listening to his music.
The lawsuit describes both men as "zealous" and "paid" promoters with incentives to "mask the true nature and extent of their conduct." They weren't casual users who happened to mention a platform they liked. They were paid performers executing a marketing strategy aimed at audiences too young to legally gamble in most jurisdictions.
The Alarming Science of Youth Gambling Addiction
The statistics on teenage gambling should terrify every parent. Research shows that 4 to 8 percent of youth develop problem gambling, compared to just 1 percent of adults. Young people are at four times the risk of adults for developing pathological gambling. Among all addictions, gambling is linked to the highest suicide rate.
By the time students reach high school, 60 to 80 percent report having gambled at least once in the past year. Studies show 6 percent of teens who have tried gambling develop the most severe form of gambling addiction, compared to about 1.5 percent of adults. The age group with the most gambling addicts is 18 to 24 years old, with 7.1 percent suffering from gambling addiction.
The data gets worse when you examine online gambling specifically. Research published in peer-reviewed journals found that online gamblers are three to eight times more likely to exhibit problematic gambling than those who don't gamble online. The format that Drake and Ross promoted, streaming casino games online, represents the highest-risk form of gambling for young people.
Children introduced to gambling by age 12 are four times more likely to develop a gambling problem later in life. The lawsuit's allegations that Drake and Ross livestreamed gambling to audiences including young teenagers means they were potentially creating lifetime gambling addicts during the most vulnerable developmental window.
Teenagers are especially susceptible because the parts of their brains needed for making reasonable decisions haven't fully developed. They're more impulsive and less inhibited. When they watch celebrities they admire bet hundreds of thousands of dollars and appear to win, they lack the cognitive capacity to understand they're watching paid performance, not genuine risk.
The House Money Scam
The most damning allegation in the lawsuit is what happened behind the scenes. According to court documents, Drake and Ross "engaged in live-streamed gambling, wagering large sums of money that was provided surreptitiously by Stake." In other words, they pretended to risk their own money while actually gambling with funds the casino gave them.
This isn't just deceptive marketing. It's fundamentally fraudulent in its psychological impact. Young viewers watched Drake bet $100,000, $500,000, sometimes over $1 million on single bets. They saw him win and lose huge sums. They absorbed the message that this level of gambling was normal, exciting, and something successful people do.
Except it was all theater. The money was free. The risk was eliminated. Drake and Ross were essentially actors performing a gambling show using the house's chips. When they won, Stake lost nothing because the money was provided by Stake to begin with. When they lost, neither Drake nor Ross actually lost anything because they never risked their own funds.
Meanwhile, teenage viewers inspired by these performances started gambling with real money. Their savings accounts. Their parents' credit cards. Money they couldn't afford to lose. And unlike Drake and Ross, when these kids lost, the losses were permanent and devastating.
The lawsuit specifically mentions Stake's internal tipping system being used to move large sums of money, including a public $100,000 tip between Drake and Ross. This system allegedly served to "move large sums of money" while "concealing the flow of funds." Young viewers saw what looked like friendly gestures between wealthy entertainers. In reality, according to the lawsuit, it was a mechanism for hiding the financial arrangement that made the entire operation possible.
The Streaming Fraud Connection
The lawsuit includes allegations that extend beyond gambling promotion into something even more calculated. Court documents claim Drake, Ross, and George Nguyen (known as "Grand Wizard") used Stake's tipping system to fund "artificial streaming ('botting') to create fraudulent streams of Drake's music."
This accusation connects two frauds into one ecosystem. Drake allegedly used money from promoting illegal gambling to purchase bot farms that artificially inflated his streaming numbers. The lawsuit claims this was done to "fabricate popularity; disparage competitors and music label executives; distort recommendation algorithms; and distribute financing for all of the foregoing, while concealing the flow of funds."
If true, this means Drake wasn't just promoting gambling to young people. He was using gambling money to manipulate the very algorithms that determine what music young people hear. Every time a teenager opened Spotify or Apple Music and saw Drake at the top of the charts, they might have been looking at numbers partially generated by bots funded through an illegal gambling operation.
The implications for cultural influence are staggering. When artists use bot farms to inflate their popularity, they don't just boost their own numbers. They actively suppress organic artists by gaming the algorithm. Independent musicians who can't afford bot farms get buried while someone with gambling money can purchase the appearance of cultural dominance.
Young viewers who watched Drake gamble on Stake and then listened to his music on streaming platforms were being manipulated on multiple levels. The gambling streams normalized betting. The artificially inflated streaming numbers made Drake appear more culturally dominant than organic popularity would suggest. The entire system was allegedly designed to extract money from young people while concealing how the operation actually worked.
The RICO Charges Explain the Scope
This isn't being prosecuted as simple false advertising. The lawsuit invokes RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, typically reserved for organized crime. RICO charges require proving that defendants formed an enterprise that engaged in a pattern of illegal activity.
The lawsuit alleges Drake, Ross, Nguyen, and Stake formed exactly that kind of enterprise. The pattern of activity allegedly included promoting illegal gambling, using house money disguised as personal funds, manipulating streaming algorithms through bot farms, and concealing financial flows through internal tipping systems.
RICO elevates this from celebrity misconduct to alleged criminal organization. The law allows for severe penalties because it's designed to dismantle systematic illegal operations, not just punish individual bad acts. By invoking RICO, the plaintiffs are arguing this wasn't a series of unrelated promotional deals. It was a coordinated scheme designed to profit from illegal activity while concealing the true nature of that activity from vulnerable audiences.
The lawsuit names plaintiffs LaShawnna Ridley and Tiffany Hines, who claim they lost money after being misled by Stake's practices. They represent what the lawsuit frames as thousands or potentially millions of victims who gambled on Stake believing they were using a legitimate platform with transparent odds and honest promotional partnerships.
Instead, according to the allegations, they were being systematically deceived by celebrities using house money to create the false impression of a level playing field, all while the platform operated illegally in jurisdictions where real-money gambling was prohibited.
Why This Matters More Than Other Celebrity Scandals
Celebrity endorsement failures happen regularly. An athlete promotes a product that turns out to be fraudulent. An actor endorses a supplement that doesn't work. These create bad publicity and sometimes lawsuits, but they rarely cause lasting harm to vulnerable populations.
Gambling addiction is different. Research shows gambling disorders can begin in children as young as 10 years old. The consequences aren't just financial. Studies document that adolescents with gambling problems report more negative life experiences overall and more major negative life events than social gamblers or non-gamblers.
Teenagers who gamble are more likely to use illegal drugs. They're more likely to experience bullying, be threatened with weapons, and be involved in violence. Gambling problems in youth are associated with depression, stress, anxiety, and significantly increased suicide risk. Among all addictions, gambling addiction has the highest correlation with suicide.
When Drake and Ross promoted Stake to their young audiences, they weren't just selling a product. They were potentially creating lifelong addicts during the exact developmental window when addiction takes hold most easily and causes the most damage.
Research shows that gambling participation typically increases during adolescence and peaks in young adulthood, when risk for gambling problems is also increased. The 18 to 24 age range, which overlaps heavily with Ross's core audience, shows the highest rates of gambling addiction. People between 18 and 24 have brains that are still developing, meaning decision-making ability hasn't fully matured, making young adults more likely to take risks or act impulsively.
Online gambling, the specific format Drake and Ross promoted, is one of the strongest predictors of gambling problems in young adults. Players aged 18 to 20 are significantly more likely to have chased their losses and bet more than they could afford. The combination of young audience, online format, and celebrity influence created perfect conditions for mass addiction development.
The Pattern of Lawsuits
This isn't Drake's first rodeo with Stake-related legal problems. He was named as a defendant in two other Stake-related lawsuits in October 2025, both filed just days apart. One came from Missouri, another from New Mexico. Both alleged similar deceptive practices around illegal gambling promotion.
Ross was also named in both October lawsuits. His response during a livestream was to call them "******* bullshit." That dismissal is telling. Someone facing serious allegations about promoting illegal gambling to young audiences responded not with concern for potential victims, but with anger at being called out.
Three separate class action lawsuits in three different states within three months suggests a pattern. This isn't one disgruntled plaintiff with a grudge. It's multiple groups of victims in different jurisdictions all claiming they were harmed by the same practices.
The lawsuits allege systematic illegal activity, not one-off mistakes. They describe an operation designed to deceive consumers while generating massive profits for the defendants. The December lawsuit specifically characterizes Stake as "operating as one of the largest and most profitable illegal online casinos" since at least 2022, meaning this wasn't a recent development or a brief promotional arrangement. It was allegedly years of systematic illegal operation.
Drake's reported $100 million endorsement deal with Stake, signed in 2022, puts enormous financial incentive behind continuing the alleged illegal activity. When someone stands to make nine figures from promoting a platform, the motivation to look the other way about that platform's legal status becomes overwhelming.
These Aren't Role Models, They're Predators
I've covered celebrity culture for years, and I'm exhausted by the cycle of famous people exploiting their young fans for profit. But this case stands out for its sheer calculated cruelty. Drake and Ross didn't accidentally promote something harmful. According to the lawsuit, they knowingly built a systematic operation to make gambling look fun, safe, and profitable to audiences full of teenagers.
The house money deception is particularly infuriating. Every teenager who watched Drake bet a million dollars absorbed the message that this level of risk is normal and acceptable. They didn't understand they were watching theater. They thought they were watching genuine gambling by someone who could afford to lose.
Then those kids went home and started gambling with their own money, or worse, with money they stole from parents or borrowed with no way to repay. They chased losses because they saw Drake chase losses. They bet beyond their means because they saw Drake bet massive sums. Except Drake was playing with free money and they weren't.
The streaming fraud allegations add another layer of betrayal. Drake allegedly didn't just use young people's gambling losses to fund his lifestyle. He used gambling money to manipulate the cultural algorithms that shape what young people listen to. He allegedly purchased artificial popularity while real artists who couldn't afford bot farms got buried.
This isn't a victimless crime. Every kid who developed a gambling addiction watching Drake and Ross has a victim story. Every family torn apart by a teenager's gambling debt has been harmed. Every young adult who drops out of college because they gambled away their tuition is suffering real consequences.
The suicide statistics are what haunt me most. Gambling addiction leads to more suicides than any other addiction. When research shows children as young as 10 can develop gambling disorders, and we know Drake and Ross promoted gambling to audiences that young, we're potentially talking about children who will die by suicide because of what they learned watching celebrity gambling streams.
That's not hyperbole. That's the documented reality of gambling addiction in young people.
What Parents Need to Know Right Now
If your teenager watches Adin Ross, you need to have a conversation about gambling today. Research shows one in six parents admit they probably wouldn't know if their child was betting online. Over half of parents aren't aware of their state's legal age for online gambling. Only one in four parents have talked to their teen about online betting.
The accessibility is what makes this particularly dangerous. Teens can't walk into a casino unnoticed, but they have easy access to a variety of betting and gambling options online. Many platforms use minimal age verification. Some use virtual currency systems that disguise the fact that you're gambling with real money.
Stake specifically advertises that it "does not offer real money gambling" and that "no purchase or payment is necessary to participate." The lawsuit alleges these statements are false because users buy Gold Coins that are always bundled with Stake Cash, which can be cashed out one to one for U.S. dollars. This kind of deceptive framing makes it harder for parents to identify when their kids are actually gambling.
Signs your teenager might have a gambling problem include sudden depletion of savings accounts, frequent requests to borrow money they don't repay, obsessive focus on sports scores, unexplained financial transactions, mood swings tied to wins and losses, and decreased performance in school or other activities.
The earlier you intervene, the better the outcomes. Children introduced to gambling by age 12 are four times more likely to develop gambling problems later. If you can prevent that early exposure, or catch it early and address it, you dramatically reduce the risk of lifetime addiction.
Talk to your kids about how gambling advertising works. Explain that celebrities are paid to make gambling look fun and profitable. Discuss how platforms use psychological tricks to keep people gambling longer than they intended. Make it clear that the odds always favor the house, and that celebrities promoting gambling often use money provided by the casino, not their own funds.
This lawsuit should serve as a warning to every celebrity considering gambling endorsements and every platform looking to partner with influencers. The legal and moral responsibilities are real. When your audience includes teenagers, you have an obligation not to promote addictive products that cause documented harm.
The entertainment industry has previously recognized these obligations with alcohol and tobacco. Celebrities who promote alcohol brands face scrutiny if their marketing targets minors. Tobacco advertising has been heavily restricted because of its impact on youth. Gambling should receive the same level of caution and regulation.
Online gambling platforms should be required to implement robust age verification, not the cursory "are you 18?" checkboxes that any kid can lie their way through. They should be prohibited from using celebrity endorsements that appeal primarily to underage audiences. And they should face severe penalties for operating illegally in jurisdictions where real-money gambling is prohibited.
Streaming platforms that host gambling content need clearer age restrictions and better enforcement. When Adin Ross livestreams casino gambling to millions of viewers, a significant portion of whom are minors, the platform hosting that stream shares responsibility for the harms that result.
The Drake and Adin Ross lawsuit represents more than just two celebrities facing legal consequences. It's a test case for whether the legal system can hold influencers accountable for systematic harm to young audiences. The RICO charges suggest prosecutors understand this wasn't just bad judgment. It was allegedly organized criminal activity.
If the allegations are proven true, the consequences should be severe. Not just financial penalties, though those matter. There should be permanent restrictions on promoting gambling products, mandatory contributions to gambling addiction treatment programs, and public acknowledgment of the harm caused.
More importantly, this case should spark broader conversation about influencer responsibility. When someone has millions of young followers, they wield enormous power. That power comes with obligations. You can't promote dangerous, addictive products to teenagers and then claim you're just an entertainer with no responsibility for the consequences.
Research is clear that gambling addiction in youth causes lasting harm. Depression, anxiety, drug use, academic failure, financial devastation, family conflict, and suicide. These aren't theoretical risks. They're documented outcomes experienced by thousands of young people every year.
Drake and Adin Ross had a choice. They could have declined lucrative gambling endorsements because their audiences included so many young people. They could have insisted on age restrictions and responsible gambling messages. They could have refused to participate in deceptive practices like using house money disguised as personal funds.
Instead, according to the lawsuit, they chose the money. They allegedly chose to promote illegal gambling to teenagers. They allegedly chose to use deceptive practices that made gambling look safer and more profitable than it actually is. And they allegedly chose to hide the financial arrangements that made the entire operation possible.
Now two plaintiffs who lost money, and potentially thousands more like them, are demanding accountability. The lawsuit seeks damages, penalties, and an order stopping the conduct. It asks the court to recognize that what Drake and Ross did wasn't just poor judgment or aggressive marketing.
It was, according to the allegations, a criminal enterprise that systematically exploited vulnerable young people for profit. And if that's proven true, the only appropriate response is severe legal consequences and permanent restrictions on their ability to influence young audiences ever again.
The kids who developed gambling addictions watching Drake and Adin Ross deserve better. Every teenager gambling away their savings because celebrities made it look cool and profitable deserves better. And every parent who discovers their child has a gambling problem they didn't even know existed deserves to know that the law will hold the people who created that problem accountable.
This lawsuit is a start. But the real change will only come when the entertainment industry collectively decides that making millions of dollars off teenage gambling addictions is not an acceptable business model, no matter how much money is involved.
Related Reads: Your Kids Are Being Raised By Strangers On The Internet And You Have No Idea What They're Learning