Simply Alpha Capital

Operator intelligence

Regulatory Intelligence

Track material changes in iGaming regulation, litigation, licensing, and market access without digging through fragmented source material.

Research summaries for operational planning. Verify the underlying source and obtain jurisdiction-specific legal advice before acting.

Records

110 results

  • Litigation matterSource checked

    United States v. Connecticut

    Same preemption question as the Illinois and Arizona CFTC suits.More

    Same preemption question as the Illinois and Arizona CFTC suits.

    Action type
    declaratory
    Defendant
    operator
    Legal question
    same preemption question as the illinois and arizona cftc suits.

    United States (Connecticut)Active2026Source: cftc.gov

  • Litigation matterSource checked

    United States v. Illinois

    Whether the CFTC has exclusive federal authority preempting a state's gambling-law application to DCM-listed eMore

    Whether the CFTC has exclusive federal authority preempting a state's gambling-law application to DCM-listed e

    Action type
    declaratory
    Defendant
    operator
    Legal question
    whether the cftc has exclusive federal authority preempting a state's gambling-law application to dcm-listed event contracts.

    United States (Illinois)Active2026Source: cftc.gov

  • Litigation matterSource checked

    Washington v. Kalshi

    Whether event contracts are gambling under Washington law, which interacts with the state's tribal-exclusivityMore

    Whether event contracts are gambling under Washington law, which interacts with the state's tribal-exclusivity

    Action type
    ag_enforcement
    Defendant
    operator
    Legal question
    whether event contracts are gambling under washington law, which interacts with the state's tribal-exclusivity gambling framework.

    United States (Washington)Active2026Source: kuow.org

  • Litigation matterSource checked

    Blazesoft entities v. Kind Law and Ben Travis Law

    Outcome: Dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction (D.D.C.).More

    Outcome: Dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction (D.D.C.).

    Legal question
    Outcome: Dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction (D.D.C.).

    1 Sept 2025Source: sweepskings.com

  • Litigation matterSource checked

    Ballew v. Huuuge, Inc.

    Outcome: Settled (~$5.8M, figure not fully independently confirmed).More

    Outcome: Settled (~$5.8M, figure not fully independently confirmed).

    Legal question
    Outcome: Settled (~$5.8M, figure not fully independently confirmed).

    5 Aug 2025Source: courtlistener.com

  • Litigation matterSource checked

    Kennedy v. VGW Holdings Limited

    Outcome: Dismissed; arbitration compelled.More

    Outcome: Dismissed; arbitration compelled.

    Legal question
    Outcome: Dismissed; arbitration compelled.

    14 Jul 2025Source: law.justia.com

  • Litigation matterSource checked

    Isle of Man GSC v. Celton Manx Limited (SBOTOP)

    Outcome: Settled for £3,937,500 (discounted from £5,625,000); licence subsequently surrendered.More

    Outcome: Settled for £3,937,500 (discounted from £5,625,000); licence subsequently surrendered.

    Legal question
    Outcome: Settled for £3,937,500 (discounted from £5,625,000); licence subsequently surrendered.

    9 May 2025Source: igamingbusiness.com

  • Litigation matterSource checked

    Bargo v. Apple, Inc.

    Outcome: Voluntarily dismissed.More

    Outcome: Voluntarily dismissed.

    Legal question
    Outcome: Voluntarily dismissed.

    1 Mar 2025Source: igamingtoday.com

  • Litigation matterSource checked

    Prater v. Apple, Inc.

    Outcome: Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice; no merits ruling.More

    Outcome: Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice; no merits ruling.

    Legal question
    Outcome: Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice; no merits ruling.

    1 Mar 2025Source: courtlistener.com

  • Litigation matterSource checked

    Fox Corp. v. Flutter Entertainment / FanDuel option-price dispute

    Outcome: Settled; Fox's option valued and exercised at $3.72bn.More

    Outcome: Settled; Fox's option valued and exercised at $3.72bn.

    Legal question
    Outcome: Settled; Fox's option valued and exercised at $3.72bn.

    1 Jan 2025Source: casino.org

  • Litigation matterSource checked

    [Ohio Gambling Loss Recovery entity] v. VGW Group

    Whether a third-party assignee/funder entity has standing to bring a mass loss-recovery claim under Ohio's staMore

    Whether a third-party assignee/funder entity has standing to bring a mass loss-recovery claim under Ohio's sta

    Action type
    individual
    Defendant
    operator
    Legal question
    whether a third-party assignee/funder entity has standing to bring a mass loss-recovery claim under ohio's statute without an identified relationship to the individual losers.

    United States (Ohio)Dismissed2025Source: orrick.com

  • Litigation matterSource checked

    Ambrosia v. Blazesoft Ltd.

    Whether an Ontario-law arbitration clause in a sweepstakes operator's terms of service is enforceable againstMore

    Whether an Ontario-law arbitration clause in a sweepstakes operator's terms of service is enforceable against

    Action type
    class_action
    Defendant
    operator
    Legal question
    whether an ontario-law arbitration clause in a sweepstakes operator's terms of service is enforceable against illinois consumers via the new york convention on foreign arbitral awards.

    United States (Illinois)Stayed2025Source: classaction.org

  • Litigation matterSource checked

    Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi, Inc.

    Whether California tribal-state compact language bars Kalshi's operation on tribal lands, and whether federallMore

    Whether California tribal-state compact language bars Kalshi's operation on tribal lands, and whether federall

    Action type
    appellate
    Defendant
    operator
    Legal question
    whether california tribal-state compact language bars kalshi's operation on tribal lands, and whether federally regulated event contracts are distinguishable from sports betting for igra purposes.

    United States (California, Tribal / 9th Cir.)On Appeal2025Source: courtlistener.com

  • Litigation matterSource checked

    Boatner v. SSPS, LLC

    Same foreign-arbitration-clause enforceability question as Ambrosia v. Blazesoft.More

    Same foreign-arbitration-clause enforceability question as Ambrosia v. Blazesoft.

    Action type
    class_action
    Defendant
    operator
    Legal question
    same foreign-arbitration-clause enforceability question as ambrosia v. blazesoft.

    United States (New York)Stayed2025Source: law.justia.com

  • Litigation matterUnverified

    Boyle v.

    Whether Stake.us's dual-currency model is illegal gambling under California law, and whether its arbitration cMore

    Whether Stake.us's dual-currency model is illegal gambling under California law, and whether its arbitration c

    Action type
    class_action
    Defendant
    operator
    Legal question
    whether stake.us's dual-currency model is illegal gambling under california law, and whether its arbitration clause is enforceable.

    United States (California)Stayed2025No source link on file

  • Litigation matterSource checked

    Boyle v. Yellow Social Interactive LTD

    Whether public-injunctive-relief UCL claims against a dual-currency operator are subject to arbitration underMore

    Whether public-injunctive-relief UCL claims against a dual-currency operator are subject to arbitration under

    Action type
    class_action
    Defendant
    operator
    Legal question
    whether public-injunctive-relief ucl claims against a dual-currency operator are subject to arbitration under california law, and whether pulsz's dual-currency model is illegal gambling.

    United States (California)Active2025Source: dockets.justia.com

  • Litigation matterSource checked

    Brown v. VGW (spouses loss-recovery action)

    Whether spouses of players (rather than the players themselves) have standing to recover gambling losses underMore

    Whether spouses of players (rather than the players themselves) have standing to recover gambling losses under

    Action type
    class_action
    Defendant
    operator
    Legal question
    whether spouses of players (rather than the players themselves) have standing to recover gambling losses under various states' loss-recovery statutes.

    United States (Multi-State: Mt/Il/Ky/Oh/Tn)Active2025Source: sccgmanagement.com

  • Litigation matterSource checked

    Brown v. VGW Holdings US Inc.

    Whether payment processors, KYC vendors, and streaming affiliates can be held liable alongside the operator foMore

    Whether payment processors, KYC vendors, and streaming affiliates can be held liable alongside the operator fo

    Action type
    class_action
    Defendant
    operator,individual,payment,supplier,affiliate
    Legal question
    whether payment processors, kyc vendors, and streaming affiliates can be held liable alongside the operator for facilitating illegal dual-currency gambling nationwide.

    United StatesActive2025Source: dockets.justia.com

  • Litigation matterSource checked

    Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. KalshiEX LLC

    Does the CEA field-preempt all state gambling regulation, or only conflict-preempt as applied to specific enfoMore

    Does the CEA field-preempt all state gambling regulation, or only conflict-preempt as applied to specific enfo

    Action type
    ag_enforcement
    Defendant
    operator
    Legal question
    does the cea field-preempt all state gambling regulation, or only conflict-preempt as applied to specific enforcement?

    United States (Massachusetts)Active2025Source: zwillgen.com

  • Litigation matterSource checked

    Connecticut DCP Gaming Division regulatory settlement — High 5 Games

    Whether a licensed B2B supplier's own dual-currency consumer-facing product constitutes unlicensed operation,More

    Whether a licensed B2B supplier's own dual-currency consumer-facing product constitutes unlicensed operation,

    Action type
    regulatory_enforcement
    Defendant
    operator,supplier
    Legal question
    whether a licensed b2b supplier's own dual-currency consumer-facing product constitutes unlicensed operation, distinct from its supplier licence.

    United States (Connecticut)Settled2025Source: casino.org

  • Litigation matterSource checked

    European Commission v. Malta (Article 56A infringement procedure)

    Whether Article 56A is a permissible codification of the narrow ordre public exception, or an unlawful blanketMore

    Whether Article 56A is a permissible codification of the narrow ordre public exception, or an unlawful blanket

    Action type
    declaratory
    Defendant
    operator
    Legal question
    whether article 56a is a permissible codification of the narrow ordre public exception, or an unlawful blanket shield undermining eu mutual trust in judgments.

    European Union / MaltaActive2025Source: eapil.org

  • Litigation matterSource checked

    Former Entain executives v. UK Gambling Commission

    Whether a gambling regulator can be sued by individuals for allegedly improper information-sharing that damageMore

    Whether a gambling regulator can be sued by individuals for allegedly improper information-sharing that damage

    Action type
    individual
    Defendant
    operator
    Legal question
    whether a gambling regulator can be sued by individuals for allegedly improper information-sharing that damaged a commercial transaction.

    United KingdomActive2025Source: cityam.com

  • Litigation matterSource checked

    Germany GGL v. Capital Bra (rapper advertising fine)

    Whether an individual influencer/celebrity promoter can be directly fined by a gambling regulator for promotinMore

    Whether an individual influencer/celebrity promoter can be directly fined by a gambling regulator for promotin

    Action type
    regulatory_enforcement
    Defendant
    affiliate,individual
    Legal question
    whether an individual influencer/celebrity promoter can be directly fined by a gambling regulator for promoting unlicensed gambling.

    GermanyClosed2025Source: next.io

  • Litigation matterSource checked

    Ho-Chunk Nation v. Kalshi Inc.

    Can a tribe sue a non-compact third party under IGRA where the tribal-state compact bars Class III gaming by aMore

    Can a tribe sue a non-compact third party under IGRA where the tribal-state compact bars Class III gaming by a

    Action type
    individual
    Defendant
    operator
    Legal question
    can a tribe sue a non-compact third party under igra where the tribal-state compact bars class iii gaming by any entity other than the tribe?

    United States (Wisconsin, Tribal)Active2025Source: courtlistener.com

Methodology

How these records are compiled.

Records are compiled from public regulatory, legislative, and litigation sources. Each entry keeps its original source link and its verification state, so you can see how far a record has been checked before you rely on it.

Summaries are research notes, not legal conclusions. A source-checked badge means a person opened the source on the recorded date — it is not a legal opinion, and it is not a sign-off on the operator implications.

The dataset is reviewed periodically. It is not a real-time feed and it does not claim complete coverage of any jurisdiction: treat a gap as a gap in this dataset, not as evidence that nothing has changed.

Field notes

Related reading

All field notes

Next step

Need this read against your own build?

A tracker tells you what moved. It does not tell you what it means for your licence, your processor, or your launch date. Bring us the jurisdictions you care about and we will work through the operational consequences with you.