Drake Hit with Bombshell Lawsuit Tied to Gambling, Fake Streams

Drake is back in the headlines in all. the wrong ways. This time, he's been. named in a new federal class action. lawsuit alongside streamer [music] Aiden. Ross. The main allegation that money was. used from an online gambling site to. boost music streams. [music]. We have the complaint. We have the legal. claims. We're going to break it all down. for you right now. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse. Weber. Now, before we go any further into this, there is something that we use here at.

Long Crime that can be very, very useful. to you. It's called Truthfinder. It is. the powerful public record search. service that we use to do research here. on Long Crime. But you want to talk. about a useful resource, you plug in a. name, you get address information, you. get criminal history, and let me just. say, this can give you some peace of. mind. Truthfinder is one of the largest. public record search services in the. United States. And with a paid. subscription, you can get access to. unlimited reports about almost anyone. And that includes looking up registered. sex offenders in your area, too. So stay. informed, stay safe, check public.

records with Truthfinder now at. truthfinder.com/lcsidebar. All right, so Drake is back in the legal. headlines, and this time he's named in a. new federal class action lawsuit that. was filed out in Virginia, and it makes. some sweeping allegations about gambling. and money movement and music streams. We're going to try to make this as. simplified for you as possible, cuz it. does get a little complicated. But the. main allegation is really, really bad. It's really egregious. According to this. newly filed complaint, the suit claims. that Drake, along with very famous.

streamer Aiden Ross and another person, that they didn't just benefit from. allegedly inflated streaming numbers, which we'll talk about. But there's an. allegation that they may have financed. those allegedly artificial streams. through an online casino. Okay, here's. the basic theory of the case as alleged. in the complaint that was obtained by. Long Crime. So, you have two consumers. who claim that they were drawn into what. they essentially describe as a predatory.

real money gambling environment on an. online casino. This is after seeing. promotions from Drake and Ross. From. there, the lawsuit claims that money. flowing through this platform wasn't. just about gambling, but was allegedly. routed in ways that supported broader. schemes, including the artificial. boosting of music streams. And this is. where things escalate because the. plaintiffs aren't just alleging. deceptive marketing. They are invoking. federal RICO law. So basically, they're.

accusing the defendants of participating. in an ongoing enterprise involving. illegal gambling, concealed money. transfers, and coordinated digital. manipulation. The complaint points to. things like the online casino's internal. tipping system, a large public giveaway, high dollar exchanges between the. parties as examples, it says, or claims, how money was allegedly moved, and how. that money was then allegedly funneled. or used to fund botting and. amplification campaigns behind the.

scenes. Now, to be clear as we go. through this, and I'll try to simplify. it as much as possible, these are just. allegations, okay? They're not proven. facts. The lawsuit is in its early. stages. Nothing has been decided or. proven in court. None of the defendants. have been found liable for anything. But. the scope of these claims, the decision. to frame them as a RICO case, remember. RICO Shan Dy Combmes. This is what makes. this filing really stand out. So with. all that in mind, I want to walk you. through what this lawsuit actually. alleges and what it would take to prove.

something like this in court. Okay. So, to help us do all that, I want to bring. on criminal defense attorney Mauricio. Padilla as we go through each aspect of. this lawsuit. Um, first of all, so good. to see you. Thank you for taking the. time. Happy New Year. >> Good seeing you. Thank you so much. >> Uh, before we even go into the suit, aren't they essentially alleging a crime. here? I mean, after reading a lawsuit. like this, it wouldn't be the first time. that you have a lawsuit that begins or. maybe initiates a criminal. investigation. But, is that what they're. alleging here, a crime? Could.

investigators begin to look into this. >> multiple crimes and crimes including the. online casino and and their behavior. towards their membership, their behavior. towards the pool of people that they're. advertising to in addition to possible. crimes involving Drake and the online. casino because I see I hear allegations. that not only is this they're they're. accusing the online casino of. malfeasants when it comes to dealing. with their own target audience regarding.

advertising. But um when when they're. they're alleging that that Drake used. the online uh casino for help in um. misdirecting views or trying to amplify. artificially amplify his um his music or. the viewership of his music to make it. look like more more people are listening. to it than than it will. And I think. that that's obviously a crime. >> And to be clear, these are just. allegations, right? one thing can be alleged at a civil. arena doesn't mean that it would.

precipitate a criminal investigation. But RICO, I mean to to to sue under RICO. for something like this, is that. unusual? Um because this isn't just. about deceptive practices or misleading. advertising or just consumer losses. They're alleging a criminal enterprise. essentially. How strange is it? Or how. often do you see someone filing a. lawsuit uh under the RICO law? Honestly, I don't see it that often. I don't think. it's something that's used that often. However, you know, in this particular.

instance, I think it may be appropriate. considering the allegations they're. alleging they're alleging, you know, things that that do spill over into the. criminal arena. And I think that what. what is not new is when you see a civil. litigation outline the crimes that were. committed by the by the tor fees or by. the defendants because that's that's. part of the job of the of of the lawyer. I'm suing you for money in civil court, but I'm letting you know that I know the.

the criminal behavior that you were. engaged in. That's not extortion. I'm. not extorting you. I'm not saying that I. am not going to call the cops if you. don't pay me money. I'm just letting you. know that I'm suing you for malfeasants, for torts that you may have committed, for egregious behavior that you're. engaged in. And I'm also letting you. know, highlighting the fact that it is. illegal, right? >> So, that's something that's not new. >> When you have a lawsuit, and we'll get. into this in a minute, but I just wanted. to ask you this before we go any. further. You have a lawsuit that names. highprofile figures, a major artist, a.

massive streamer. How does that affect. the case, how it's litigated, what the. negotiations are behind the scenes? >> Well, number one, you know that they are. going to come 100%. So, you already know. in advance that you're dealing with the. type of person or the type of persons. because not only are we talking about, you know, Drake, the YouTuber, but we're. talking about the online casino. You. already know that these are deep. pockets. And what does that mean? That. means that they have the money to put up.

the best defense that money can buy. So, you must be aware that you are going to. be challenged on everything. Jurisdiction, subject matter, you know, motions to dismiss. you already know in. advance that they're are going to come. with everything. Now, I'm assuming that. that they didn't play ball when it comes. to the the the pre uh pre-litigation. phase, the demand letters. I mean, I'm. I'm assuming that this that that's why. this was filed because the online casino. andor the other defendants didn't want.

to resolve the case before it got filed. But for for me, the main thing when you. go against, you know, high-profile. celebrities, which I've done before in. the past, is you must be aware that you. are in for a battle, which is important. when when you're taking that first step. >> And what's different about this case is. it's not just one or two people suing. So, it's a class action lawsuit. And I. wanted to ask you about this. So, the. lawsuit was filed by two consumers, right? LSA Ridley, Tiffany Hines, but on. behalf of a class, right? those in the. same position, namely those allegedly.

who were misled by the defendants and. induced into illegal gambling and that. they suffered. And they claim that there. was use of this gambling website, this. online casino. They lost money on the. platform. They were influenced to sign. up, keep playing after these promotions. were seen from by Drake and streamer. Aiden Ross. And they're suing this. online casino along with Drake. Aiden. Ross and a third defendant uh named.

George Wyn who the complaint describes. as an online operator involved in. amplification and promotion campaigns. Uh Mauricio uh talk to me about why this. is framed as a consumer class action. rather than an individual dispute. Why. do this? And how easy is it to get the. court to agree to certify this as a. massive class action lawsuit? >> Right. Well, it's important because what. you're doing is you're letting the the. defendant know, the online casino know.

is that we're not only suing on behalf. of these two people, we're opening it up. to all the other people that have. suffered because of your, you know, actions and and then then separate and. apart from the from the actual. litigation is the attorneys can look for. other people that now what'll happen is. how when you ask how difficult is it to. classify this as a class action, I don't. think that it's going to be difficult. based on what I've read. I think that it. that it checks off a lot of the boxes. that the courts are going to be looking. for. And once that's opened up, then.

then the actual attorneys can do a. campaign of advertising to look for. other people that have suffered the same. uh you know the the same issues that the. other the the the people that are are um. are uh putting up the the actual class. action. So they're they're going to look. for people that have suffered the the. same damages and then that opens up the. amount of damages. So now we're not. talking about just the damages of these. two people which could be limited to. what they lost. We're talking about the. damages of all the people that you know.

that lost money on this online casino. which I'm just like any casino is going. to be substantial. So it's a substantial. financial risk for them. A. >> and you know also from efficiency. purposes instead of having 50 different. lawsuits alleging the same thing you do. it as one massive class action. Um so. from there let let me get into this. The. complaint lays out its core theory, right? And it starts with the online. casino itself. So, according to the. lawsuit, this online casino is not what. it claims to be. That's the allegation. The plaintiffs alleged that it presents. itself as a harmless quote social casino.

while actually operating as a real money. gambling platform that violates US ver. US and Virginia law. The filing puts it. like this. quote, "The online casino, we're not going to mention the name of. it, by the way, but the online casino. was created and marketed to US customers. as a social casino that purportedly does. not permit real money gambling to bypass. applicable United States, federal, and. state gambling regulations." And then. the plaintiffs then explain how the. platform allegedly works in practice,

namely an illegal online casino of games. and bets. They say that this online. casino uses two virtual currency. systems, gold coins and the online. casino's cash. So gold coins are framed. as playon tokens. There's no monetary. value. They can't convert it into real. cash. But the online casinos cash. according to the complaint that can be. cashed out for real money or. cryptocurrency. And the argument here. seems to be that gambling is being.

disguised as gameplay while users are. still exposed to real financial loss. Mauricio, um, talk to me about what you. make of that uh, argument um, and and. what you think might be the strength of. this, how this might be able to be uh, proven or if you see any kind of. deficiencies in it. Well, first of all, if you look at the. this online casino and you look at the. money it makes, the revenue it makes, I'm going to be able to gamble, for lack.

of a better word, that you're going to. find out that the money that they're. making is because people are gambling. for real. You people don't the people. the reason people gamble is because. there is a financial interest at stake. People gamble because they want to win. money. So, even though I don't know. anything about this online casino, I'm. willing to bet that when you look at, you know, their their financial. structure, how much revenue they make in. a year, they're making money because. people are gambling for real. And if. that's the case, just because you say.

that this is fake, if it's not fake and. you're raking in 100 million, 200. million, 300 million, and you are not. jumping through all the hoops that all. the other online casinos in the United. States have to jump through, then you. have an issue and you have a problem. And this this lawsuit is a way for all. of a sudden everybody to be talking. about that you are violating the rules. and the laws of this country and other. countries. A. >> and if through the course of discovery.

if they have to open the books and show. what's really going on that could be a. problem. Now again these are allegations. they they have the right to defend. themselves. I I do want to get into once. we get into that framework how it's. established how the lawsuit then turns. to Drake and Aiden Ross. Okay. So. according to the filing, both of these. men were allegedly paid promoters of the. online casino. So the complaint alleges. that they live streamed gambling. sessions, that they posted giveaways, and presented themselves as actively. betting what they have all while.

encouraging fans to do the same. But. that might not be the case. So the. plaintiffs claim there is a crucial. detail that viewers weren't told. The. lawsuit alleges, quote, "Though Drake. and Ross purported to be gambling with. their own online casino cash, it was in. fact provided to them by the House." So, in other words, the complaint claims. that the gambling that audiences saw. wasn't truly personal risk. It looked. real enough to influence viewers into. wagering their own money, but that.

wasn't the case. That they were being. falsely misled. Now, Mauricio, how do. they know that? How how do the. plaintiffs how can they prove that? >> Well, I mean they could prove that. many ways. They can prove that through. the side of the online casino because. whatever whatever people really bet or. loss in real money that that has to be. kept in the records of the actual online. casino, it has to be actually kept by. whatever, you know, email correspondence. or whatever transaction existed between.

Drake and the online casino. So, it's. not it's not something that can be. disproven. Now, I know just because I. used to represent a a UFC fighter and at. one point I I I believe that Drake. wagered a large sum on his behalf and it. was a large sum and he was like he. wasn't even favored. And I think my. nephew was the one that told me, man, that that's fake, you know, like my my. nephew told me, don't don't believe that. he's not really betting that money. Now, I don't know if he did or not, but they. could be assuming it because they could.

be assuming it because we're talking. about large amounts of money on. underdogs that people could say, you. know, he's got a lot of money, but I. don't see him post putting up that type. of money. So, I don't know if it's. assumed or if it's known. >> Would a defense be, hey, it was my own. cash or B, you know, it was clear I was. making a joke. I was clear or I was not. having people rely on what I was doing. I mean, is that a defense? >> Both. Both. Now, now the first one is a.

good defense. That was my own cash is a. great defense. I'm assuming that they're. not going to be able to use that because. I doubt that it really was his cash. I. think he's too smart with his money. historically to do that. But then the. second one, yeah, but you know, uh, you. know, advertisers should not really, you. know, think that what I say is true or. or yeah, that, you know, that's a a. weaker argument because you're you're. really cannonballing yourself into what. the plaintiff is saying. When you are a. celebrity, you have an obligation to the. public to say things that are true. And.

anytime that there's any type of. defamatory lawsuit, truth is always. going to be a defense. Truth is a. defense to slander. Truth is a defense. to liel. Okay, so from there the lawsuit broadens. its scope because the plaintiffs alleged. that this online casino didn't just. function as a gambling platform, but. this is the main part, but also as a. moneymoving system through an internal. feature called tipping. So according to. the complaint, this allowed users. including Drake and Ross and Win to send.

large sums of money to one another. directly inside the platform. The filing. describes the tipping system as quote, "An unlimited and wholly unregulated. money transmitter that appears to exist. outside the oversight of any financial. regulator." The plaintiffs alleged that. money moved through the online casino's. tipping system was then used to fund. artificial streaming activity, sometimes. called botting, with the goal of. inflating Drake's streaming numbers, manipulating algorithms, and amplifying. online narratives. The complaint alleges.

through the online casino's tipping. function, defendants have financed their. combined artificial streaming to create. fraudulent streams of Drake's music, 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. And the lawsuit points to. specific examples that it says support. that claim, including this apparent. large public tip between Drake and Ross,

a major large money giveaway by Drake in. partnership with Ross and the online. casino, and even how days before this. complaint was filed, they allege Drake. gave Ross allegedly a $220,000. car as a gift. And the plaintiffs argue. these transactions weren't random but. part of a broader pattern. Now Mariso, that's that connective tissue is very. interesting there because then if that's. true, you're talking about a real life.

effect. You're talking about inflating. streaming numbers which can have a. financial advantage to the players at a. financial disadvantage to other players. But that connectivity is really really. interesting or that alleged uh. connectivity. What what stands out to. you about it? Well, first of all, if. they're making these allegations as. lawyers, it's got to be based on. something. So, that that's the most. interesting thing. Like, they're just. not just saying this. They just can't be. saying this. There has to be something.

that they have, some evidence that they. have that this is true. In my. understanding of the rules of ethics, you just can't be throwing stuff on the. wall to see what sticks. There has to be. some basis. Now, the the issue with this. is that. >> there is connectivity to the lawsuit, but this can open up the door to. >> many other lawsuits from other people. that have been damaged by this type of. artificially inflating viewerships. Now, you're going to see a lot of other. artists that are going to be out there. saying, "Hey, you know what? Like, you. know, I I've suffered because of this. You know, like my album, you know, should have had more viewership. I.

should have gotten this contract. I. should have gotten this record deal and. I didn't. these numbers that are that. are that are art artificially, you know, inflated. Now, lawyers like this when. dealing with people like Drake and and. this online casino, you know, there. could be a counter counter lawsuit. So, you got to be, you know, careful of the. allegations that you made. And that's. why I'm assuming that they have to have. some some basis to to be bring these. this lawsuit forward. >> But but I I guess the question the the. defense from Drake would be, I'm Drake.

Of course, people are watch are going. streaming my music. Like, how are they. going to prove that he's not he's. popular, right? You know, >> right? I I get it. I He's popular, but. his popularity goes to the point like. I'm gonna get married in a week. My wife. had a Drake song on our list and I. looked at it and I said, "Babe, I'm. going to veto it just because of, you. know, best I ever had, best I ever had, best I ever had." Like they played it so. much that it causes something in my mind. like so it's like Drake is played so.

often so often so repetitive that it. questions is it artificial or not? Why. do we hear his songs so often? >> By the way, you getting married in a. week? Are you getting married in a week? >> Yeah. >> Oh, congratulations. Oh, so you learned. a little bit of uh we learned a little. Mauricio Padilla trivia in the middle of. um All right. So maybe Drake. >> No Drake at the wedding. >> No Drake at the wedding after this. Okay. Well, all of that leads to why. this case is framed the way it is. So, the plaintiffs aren't just alleging. deceptive marketing or consumer fraud.

They are alleging again a coordinated. enterprise operating over multiple. years, which is why they bring these. claims under the federal RICO statute. along with the state consumer protection. laws. So the complaint alleges that the. defendants work together as a continuing. operation quote defined by explicit. roles and executed on an ongoing basis. persistently since at least 2022. So. there is uh claims here for violation of. the RICO law RICO conspiracy basically.

an agreement uh engaging in deceptive. and misleading acts in violation of. Virginia consumer protection act. Mauricio, it feels to me that if this. case progresses, what may seal the deal. is the communications, right? The. emails, the text messages, maybe phone. records, any communication between Ross. and Drake, their representatives when. because that's what you need for this. You need there to be a common. understanding. You need there to be a. plan, >> right? Yeah. But but listen, if what.

they say is true, it's illegal and it is. the basis for a civil lawsuit. You. cannot benefit from inflated viewerships. by way of get, you know, receiving. awards, getting money from from, you. know, Spotify, getting money from other. other record deals if it was artificial. at inception. Meaning, if you entered an. agreement with someone for them to. artificially bolster your music, bolster. your record, and it was fake and you. made money, that's illegal, and that is. a basis for a lawsuit.

>> What are you expecting next in this? What do you think is going to happen. next? Well, listen, the more that I. talk, including in this interview, I've. realized when I originally said that. maybe that they they didn't fall for a. demand. Maybe this is the kind of. lawsuit that they didn't want a. resolution. They wanted the lawsuit. Like, for instance, who's going to. benefit here? Not only the plaintiffs. and the plaintiff's lawyers, but the. online casinos that are playing by the. rules. >> So, there's a whole bunch of people, >> you know, behind the pliff saying, "Yeah, listen, this online casino is. taking a chunk of our business." So. that's that's a big that's an important.

motivation to keep it going. Now what's. going to happen? Motions to dismiss. Uh. lack of jurisdiction. Uh I'm sure this. online casino has when you click onto. the to the you know to become a member. is going to have language that says that. you know choice of law is going to be in. you know Cyprus or or any other country. you know any country where where they're. where they're uh registered in. So. there's going to be a whole battle about. you know whether or not this is going to. survive. motion to dismiss based on a. jurisdictional issue. Uh, and not not to.

mention various other motions to dismiss. or various other issues within the. motion to dismiss, but I think that. jurisdictional attack is going to be. first. >> I'm curious to see the legal response uh. from Drake and Aiden Ross uh and win. But, uh, we'll keep a careful eye on. this one. This is a a big lawsuit. Um, Marissa Padilla, thank you so much for. taking the time. Congratulations. Uh, have a great wedding. I'm surprised I'm. not invited, but that's uh you know a. separate question for another time. Uh. thank you. It's okay. But seriously, thank you so much. I appreciate it. >> And that's all we have for you right now.

here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so. much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple. Podcast, Spotify, wherever you [music]. get your podcast. You can follow me on X. or Instagram. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll. speak to you next time.