Kick Florida Lawsuit: The August Ban Request and the Seizure Claim

In a civil complaint filed August 19, 2026, Florida’s attorney general asks a court to bar Kick, its co-founders Ed Craven and Bijan Tehrani, and two Stake-linked companies from operating in the state. The Kick Florida lawsuit also seeks forfeiture of property tied to alleged illegal gambling, but it does not expressly request seizure of Kick’s website or domain. Later filings and orders could not be verified for this report.

An October 16 post on X by @antislave1 presented the case as “Breaking!” and said: “Site could be seized.” The complaint had been filed two months earlier. The post’s points that Florida accuses Kick of marketing the casinos and names both founders match the complaint. Dyutam’s August 25 report covered Florida’s action against Stake and its payment processors.

Why Kick and its founders are defendants

The complaint alleges that Kick operates under common ownership and control with Stake through Craven and Tehrani, using gambling livestreams, sponsorships and referral links to market the casino brand. It also alleges that the pair launched Kick after Twitch prohibited Stake-related gambling content (paragraphs 10–11 and 70–71).

The complaint separately alleges that both founders personally participated in the challenged conduct. These are allegations, not judicial findings. Dyutam’s guide to sweepstakes casinos and real-money casinos explains the dual-currency model at the center of the case.

The August request to bar operations in Florida

Paragraph 158(2) seeks a permanent injunction, a court order prohibiting specified conduct, against Kick, Craven, Tehrani, Sweepsteaks (Stake.us) and Easygo. The requested order would bar them from operating in Florida, soliciting Florida consumers or permitting Florida consumers to participate in sweepstakes-casino activity. The operating clause uses these words:

“from operating in the State of Florida”

— Florida complaint, paragraph 158(2), page 51

The operating clause is not expressly limited to gambling streams. It is also a different remedy from seizing or transferring Kick’s site, and the complaint alone does not establish the terms of any court order.

Does the forfeiture request reach Kick’s site?

The complaint’s six “Stake Defendants” are the five named above plus Medium Rare. Item (e) in the final prayer for relief, the complaint’s list of requested court action, seeks forfeiture and recovery of money and things of value “at stake, used, or won” in connection with alleged gambling on those defendants’ sweepstakes casino websites by people gambling in Florida. Section 849.12 also reaches qualifying property used in connection with illegal gambling.

The request ties the property to gambling conducted on the Stake Defendants’ sweepstakes casino websites. The complaint describes Kick as a livestreaming platform used to market Stake; it does not identify Kick’s website or domain as property to be forfeited, and which assets would qualify is not settled by the pleading.

Paragraph 125(2) and prayer (l) also ask for further relief. Under Section 501.207(3), a court may, on motion, appoint a receiver, order assets sequestered or frozen, or impose reasonable restrictions on a defendant’s future activities. These powers do not establish an express domain-seizure request in the August complaint or show that a court granted one.

This conclusion is limited to the August 19 complaint. The live Hillsborough docket was inaccessible during the review, so later motions, amendments and orders were not verified. The absence of an express domain request in the original pleading is not proof that no later request or order exists.

How the claims and remedies differ by defendant

According to the original complaint, all eight defendants face Count I, for forfeiture and recovery of gambling losses under Sections 849.12 and 849.29. Count II, under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), names only Sweepsteaks Ltd. d/b/a Stake.us, Easygo Group Holdings Pty Ltd., Kick Streaming Pty Ltd., Tehrani and Craven.

Other items in the prayer seek relief against different defendant groups. Item (i) seeks an injunction against six Stake Defendants, including Medium Rare. Item (j) seeks to restrain the alleged unlawful conduct by all defendants and specified associated persons and entities. The operating-ban request covers five defendants, the general injunction six, and the restraint request all eight.

The complaint also seeks restitution to consumers and disgorgement, meaning recovery of allegedly wrongful gains. It requests civil penalties of up to $10,000 per willful violation and up to $15,000 for qualifying enhanced violations. These are requested ceilings, not imposed fines.

The enhanced-penalty statute defines a senior citizen as 60 or older. For the disability-based enhancement discussed in the complaint, an impairment must substantially limit a major life activity; a gambling-addiction diagnosis would not by itself establish that test. The complaint invokes mental or psychological disorders and cites gambling addiction as a recognized disorder.

Company rules and the earlier legal context

Kick’s current community guidelines require creators to follow the gambling laws in their jurisdiction and permit sponsored gambling only for platforms holding valid licenses there, alongside disclosure and age rules. These are general platform rules, not a response to this Florida complaint or evidence that the alleged conduct complied with them. No Florida-specific public response from the defendants was located in the searches conducted for this report.

Florida was not the first government plaintiff to name Kick and the founders. A Los Angeles complaint dated August 28, 2025, already named them; the city attorney announced that action on September 4.

Florida’s September 25 demands to advertising platforms were a separate action. The October 23 response date in the published Google letter concerns that demand; it is not a Kick deadline established by the reviewed complaint.

FAQs

Sources

• Florida complaint for equitable and statutory relief, August 19, 2026 — Florida Office of the Attorney General; especially ¶¶10–11, 16, 70–71, 115–127, 158–162 and prayer (e)–(l)
• Announcement of the Stake and VGW lawsuits — Florida Office of the Attorney General
• Section 849.12: Money and prizes to be forfeited — Florida Legislature
• Section 849.29: Persons against whom recovery suits may be brought — Florida Legislature
• Section 501.207: Remedies of enforcing authority — Florida Legislature
• Section 501.2075: Civil penalty — Florida Legislature
• Section 501.2077: Enhanced penalties and qualifying consumers — Florida Legislature
• Los Angeles complaint dated August 28, 2025 — Primary court document, hosted by SBC Americas
• Announcement of the Los Angeles Stake.us lawsuit — Los Angeles City Attorney
• Community Guidelines, Guideline 11 — KICK
• October 16, 2026 post raising the seizure claim — @antislave1 on X; not evidence of a court order