NoLimitCoins Lawsuit: A1 Development Sued in Illinois

A1 Development LLC, the Wyoming company behind NoLimitCoins and Funrize, has spent a year defending a putative class action in Chicago, and on September 23, 2026 the judge ruled on two motions it filed back in January. The free court record shows that the order exists and does not show what it says.

Our own operator page has said for a year that no litigation names this company. That sentence is wrong and we are correcting it below. The case is Lejman v. A1 Development LLC, No. 1:25-cv-10984, in the Northern District of Illinois, before Judge Elaine E. Bucklo. We pulled the docket and the one free document on it the day the order landed. That is how we check what we publish.

Start with why this matters to a player rather than a lawyer. A1 Development is not a fringe operator on our pages. It runs three brands we review, out of six sites it names itself as operating, and two of them sit near the top of our ranked list of tested sweepstakes casinos: Funrize at displayed position 4 with a 9.2, NoLimitCoins at position 7 with an 8.9, and TaoFortune far down at 26.

What is actually on the docket?

Not much text, and that is the honest headline. The free mirror carries fifteen numbered entries out of at least thirty-nine, and from entry 10 onward every one of them is a bare clerk label with the document itself behind PACER. Below is every numbered entry in the free record, not a selection from it.

The court lists the cause as "28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract" and the nature of suit as "370 Other Fraud", with a jury demanded by the plaintiff. Those are the court's own classification codes, not a description of anyone's conduct. A private contract suit is also not a regulator's finding: whether sweepstakes casinos are legal is a state-by-state question this docket does not answer. The complaint is not free to download, so we have not read a single allegation in it and are not going to characterise one.

The one document anybody can read for nothing is the waiver of service at entry 6, and it carries two facts worth having. The first is the defendant's name: "A1 DEVELOPMENT LLC, d/b/a No Limit Coins", which is what ties this docket to the brand. The second is the plaintiff's caption, printed on the same form: "KYLE LEJMAN, individually, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated." This is pleaded as a class action. No class has been certified, no class definition is readable on the free record, and we do not know who would be in one. The waiver was signed on October 30, 2025 by Sean Patterson of Duane Morris LLP in San Francisco for the company, and returned to plaintiff's counsel Scott Edelsberg.

What did the judge decide on September 23?

We do not know, and we are not going to guess. Entry 39 carries no text, no page count and no downloadable document, and there is no published opinion package for this case on govinfo as of today - the address returns govinfo's generic not-found file rather than an opinion PDF. What the record establishes is that two motions filed on January 9, 2026 were both resolved on September 23, 2026, after eight and a half months in which the only visible activity was briefing housekeeping: two orders on extensions of time, at entries 29 and 32, the first of which also granted leave to file excess pages.

Note also what the clerk's label does and does not say. "Compel" is the generic docket label; it does not tell you whether the motion sought arbitration or discovery, and we will not assert either. It is fair to record that A1's published terms contain both an arbitration agreement and a class action waiver, and that this case is pleaded as a class action. What happens when a sweeps operator does move to compel is a matter of public record elsewhere: a Massachusetts judge refused to send a Modo.us player to arbitration because the site's terms were illusory, while two other federal courts rejected the same argument. It is not fair to read the outcome of entry 39 off any of that, and we are not doing so. If the order becomes public we will report what it holds.

What does A1's arbitration clause actually say?

This part needs no court file, because A1 publishes it. We read the live Terms of Use at nolimitcoins.com/page/agreement/ and funrize.com/page/agreement/ on September 23, 2026. Both are "Version 2.0" of the same document, revised 03.09.2026 and 03.06.2026 respectively, and both name "A1 Development LLC, address: 571 S Washington, Afton, Wyoming 83110, USA". It is the document we reported in August as never using the words "Sweeps Coins", "sweepstakes" or "redemption" at all.

One clause stands out and it is not the arbitration agreement itself. Section 15.6 says a Notice of Dispute "must be filed within ten (10) calendar days of the situation giving rise to the dispute", and section 15.3 makes that informal procedure "a condition precedent to initiating arbitration or any formal proceeding over a Dispute". Ten days. If your redemption is refused on a Friday and you spend three weeks arguing with support instead of sending a formal notice, the document says you have already missed the step it requires before anything else.

The 30-day opt-out is the industry baseline and we have written about the opt-out window nearly every sweeps operator buries in its terms. The 10-day notice deadline is not baseline, and we have not found it phrased that tightly anywhere else.

Which states do NoLimitCoins and Funrize block?

Fourteen, and Illinois is not one of them, which is presumably why the case is in Chicago. Section 3.4 of the same Terms bars access from Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming. Four more are put into Gold Coins mode only: California, Indiana, Maine and "Meryland" - the typo is in the live document. Illinois is on neither list, so on the operator's own terms an Illinois player is neither barred nor held to Gold Coins.

Wyoming is on the barred list, which is the state where the company gives its own address.

What does this change on our own pages?

Our A1 Development operator page says we "found no litigation naming A1 Development directly beyond the Illinois C&D shared with most of the industry". That sentence is no longer accurate, and it has been wrong for a year. A federal suit naming the company was filed on September 11, 2025. We are flagging it here rather than quietly patching it, and the page needs rewriting.

Nothing in this changes a score, an offer or a state list today. It does not change what clearing a redemption takes at either brand, and it is not a finding against the company: no court has decided anything against A1 Development on any record we can read. What it changes is that the operator behind two of our better-rated brands has been in federal court for a year and our pages did not say so.

Sources & documents

• Docket, Lejman v. A1 Development LLC, No. 1:25-cv-10984 (N.D. Ill.) - read September 23, 2026; the source of every entry number, date and clerk label above, including entry 39
• Waiver of the Service of Summons, entry 6 - the only free document on the docket; names "A1 DEVELOPMENT LLC, d/b/a No Limit Coins", captions the plaintiff as suing "on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated", and names both sides' counsel
• RECAP entry search for the A1 Development caption - how we found the September 23 order
• govinfo package address for this case - returns govinfo's generic not-found file, confirming no published opinion as of September 23, 2026
• NoLimitCoins Terms of Use, Version 2.0, revised 03.09.2026 and Funrize Terms of Use, Version 2.0, revised 03.06.2026 - the source of sections 3.4, 15.3, 15.6 and 16, quoted verbatim

We asked the company nothing and this piece carries no response from it. Everything attributed to the court record above is the clerk's wording, not ours.

21+ only. Sweepstakes casinos are not gambling, but the money you spend on coin packages is real. If play stops being fun, call or text 1-800-GAMBLER. Responsible gaming resources.