Crown Coins Kentucky Lawsuit: 4 Proposed Agreed Orders

Four of the thirteen Kentucky sweepstakes class actions now carry a filing logged as a "Proposed Agreed Order", the first of them in the Crown Coins operator's case on August 28, 2026, and two judges have ruled on the ones in front of them. Two days before that first filing, a separate case in the same batch drew the batch's only amended complaint. None of these documents is downloadable, so we can report that they exist and what the clerk called them, and nothing about what they say.

Both filings matter because of what the batch has looked like until now. Since July 20 and 21, when the thirteen suits landed in the Western District of Kentucky, almost every entry across the whole set has been housekeeping: case assignments, disclosure statements, summonses, deficiency notices, out-of-state lawyers applying to appear, and lately waivers of service. These two are the first entries that are neither admin nor service mechanics.

What was filed in the Crown Coins case?

Payne v. Sunflower, Ltd., No. 4:26-cv-00485, is assigned to Chief Judge David J. Hale. Its fourteenth entry is dated August 28, 2026 and is logged as "Proposed Agreed Order". Its fifteenth, dated September 1, 2026, is logged as "Order on Proposed Agreed Order", which is the court acting on it four days later, over a weekend, so on the next business day but one.

The two defendants are Sunflower, Ltd. and Sunflower Technology, Inc., which is the pairing we identify as the operator of Crown Coins Casino, the brand at the top of our ranked list of tested sweepstakes casinos. The Apple app catalogue, checked again on August 29, still lists CrownCoins Casino under the seller name Sunflower Ltd.

Both Sunflower defendants waived service on August 19, at entries 12 and 13. The agreed order arrives nine days after that, and it was the first thing on any of the thirteen dockets to carry the word "agreed". It is no longer the only one. Three more have followed on three other dockets in the batch, on September 9 and September 22, and they are set out below.

The Sunflower docket has moved three times more since. Entry 16, dated September 9, 2026, is logged as "Deficiency" - a clerk's notice that something filed does not meet the court's requirements - and entry 17, dated September 10, is logged as "Corporate and/or Diversity Disclosure Statement (Rule 7.1)", which is the kind of filing a deficiency notice about a missing disclosure would produce. A second Rule 7.1 disclosure statement went on at entry 18 on September 14. All three are title-only like the rest, so that reading is a sequence rather than something the docket states, and we cannot tell you which filing the deficiency attaches to or what is wrong with it.

A proposed agreed order is a document the parties hand up jointly for a judge to sign. That is all we can say about its function in general, because both the proposal and the order on it are title-only in the public mirror: no description, no text, no downloadable PDF on either. We are not going to guess whether they concern deadlines, arbitration, briefing or anything else, and an "Order on Proposed Agreed Order" label does not tell you whether the judge signed the parties' document, modified it or refused it.

Which Kentucky case filed an amended complaint?

Worth v. Forever Winning, LLC, No. 4:26-cv-00486, is assigned to Judge Benjamin Beaton. Jason Earl Worth filed it on July 21, 2026 as a statewide class action, and the clerk's entry records the filing fee at $405. Three entries have gone on since our last report: an "Amended Complaint" at entry 16 on August 26, a "Notice (Other)" at entry 17 on August 27, and an order granting a pro hac vice motion at entry 18 on August 28.

That amended complaint is the only one on any of the thirteen dockets. It is also title-only, so its contents are not readable either.

Four more entries have gone on since. Two are dated September 9, 2026: a "Notice of Appearance" at entry 19 and a "Proposed Agreed Order" at entry 20. That second one was the batch's second proposed agreed order, eleven days after the Sunflower filing this article opened with, and it put the same kind of document in front of a second judge. Entry 21, on September 10, is logged only as "Notice (Other)", which tells a reader nothing at all. Then on September 11 the docket drew an unnumbered entry logged as "Order on Proposed Agreed Order", so Judge Beaton acted two days after the parties handed their document up. All four are title-only, so what the parties agreed about, and what the judge did with it, are not things we can tell you.

One piece of context is readable, and it is worth holding onto. This docket shows no waiver of service and no return of service. A summons was issued to Forever Winning on July 21 at entry 4, and nothing since records it being served. Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure says a party "may amend its pleading once as a matter of course no later than 21 days after serving it", and separately that "any required response to an amended pleading must be made within the time remaining to respond to the original pleading or within 14 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever is later". Which of those clocks is running here depends on service facts the docket does not show.

We have never matched Forever Winning, LLC to a consumer brand. A company of that name appears in the site footers of the eight casinos in the Mamba Limited family, but the footer address is a shared registered-agent address and the complaint is not public, so nothing joins the two records except the name. That has not changed.

Which of the 13 cases have a proposed agreed order?

Four of them, spread across three of the batch's judges: two in front of Chief Judge Hale, one each in front of Judge Beaton and Judge Stivers.

The two newest landed on September 22, 2026. Taylor v. Parana Plays, LLC, No. 4:26-cv-00482, drew a "Proposed Agreed Order" at entry 17 that day, and Smith v. Moshy Gaming, LLC, No. 4:26-cv-00490, drew one at entry 16 - Moshy Gaming is the company behind Moozi. Both of the new ones are title-only in the public mirror, with no text, no filer named and no document to download, and no order on either has appeared.

Not one of the six documents in that table is downloadable, so the dates and the labels are everything the record gives us.

Where does each of the 13 Kentucky cases stand?

All thirteen dockets were re-read on August 29, 2026, again on September 2, September 10, September 11 and September 22. Three of them would not serve their pages and were read through the search API instead, which returns the same entry list. Four rows have moved since publication: the two this article is about, and the Parana Plays and Moshy Gaming entries above.

Service has been acknowledged on four dockets out of thirteen: one waiver each in the Parana Plays and Moshy Gaming cases and two in the Sunflower case, all on August 19, then VGW's eight waivers on August 27 covering the companies behind Chumba Casino, Global Poker and LuckyLand Slots. The other nine dockets still show a summons issued in July and nothing acknowledging it.

Five of the thirteen defendants have a file of their own on this site: VGW, the company behind Chumba and Global Poker; Moshy Gaming, which runs Moozi; MW Services, which runs WOW Vegas; A1 Development, which runs Funrize, NoLimitCoins and TaoFortune; and ARB Gaming, whose Modo.us brand is separately facing 12 federal cases and four arbitration orders.

What does this mean for a Kentucky player?

Nothing yet, in the practical sense. No defendant has answered any of the thirteen complaints, no court has ruled on the merits of any of them, and nothing on these dockets orders an operator to stop taking Kentucky players or to pay anyone. Our Kentucky legality page sets out the state's position, and our running report on the thirteen-case wave carries the full defendant-to-brand mapping and the statutes the claims run on.

What these filings do change is the tempo. Six weeks of paperwork produced nothing but procedure. Then in three days the batch produced an amended pleading and its first jointly proposed order, and over the four weeks since, three more dockets have drawn proposed agreed orders of their own and two judges have ruled on the ones in front of them. What none of that tells us is what the parties are agreeing about, because not one of these documents is public. If you want the background on why private plaintiffs can bring these claims at all, our explainer on whether sweepstakes casinos are legal covers the sweepstakes-law argument the operators rely on.

Sources & documents

• Payne v. Sunflower, Ltd., 4:26-cv-00485 (W.D. Ky.) - entry 14, "Proposed Agreed Order", August 28, 2026; entry 15, "Order on Proposed Agreed Order", September 1, 2026; entry 16, "Deficiency", September 9, 2026; entry 17, "Corporate and/or Diversity Disclosure Statement (Rule 7.1)", September 10, 2026; entry 18, a second Rule 7.1 disclosure statement, September 14, 2026; and the two waivers at entries 12 and 13. All five of the September entries carry no text and no available document
• Worth v. Forever Winning, LLC, 4:26-cv-00486 - entry 16 amended complaint, entry 17 notice, entry 18 pro hac vice order, entries 19 and 20 dated September 9, 2026, a notice of appearance and the batch's second proposed agreed order, entry 21 dated September 10, a "Notice (Other)", and an unnumbered entry dated September 11, 2026 logged as "Order on Proposed Agreed Order". All five September entries are title-only
• Taylor v. Parana Plays, LLC, 4:26-cv-00482 - entry 17, "Proposed Agreed Order", September 22, 2026, title-only, and Smith v. Moshy Gaming, LLC, 4:26-cv-00490 - entry 16, the same label and date, also title-only. These are also the two waiver dockets outside the Sunflower and VGW cases, each carrying one waiver of service dated August 19, 2026
• Gonzalez Payne v. VGW, Ltd, 4:26-cv-00484 - the eight August 27 waivers
• Worth v. Golden Hearts Games, Inc., 4:26-cv-00487, Iracane v. Utech Solutions, LLC, 4:26-cv-00492, Taylor v. The Money Factory, LLC, 4:26-cv-00483, Mundy v. MW Services, LTD., 4:26-cv-00493, Taylor v. Woopla, Inc., 4:26-cv-00489, Mundy v. A1 Development, LLC, 4:26-cv-00494, Taylor v. ARB Gaming, LLC, 4:26-cv-00488 and Iracane v. WW Funcrafters JWA, LLC, 4:26-cv-00491 - the remaining dockets in the batch
• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 15 - amendment as a matter of course and the time to respond to an amended pleading
• Apple app catalogue search for CrownCoins Casino - seller name Sunflower Ltd.

All thirteen dockets were re-read on August 29, 2026, on September 2, on September 10, on September 11 and again on September 22. The Woopla, A1 Development and WW Funcrafters docket pages would not load and their entry lists were taken from the same site's search API. Not one of the documents described here is available for download: not the amended complaint, not any of the four proposed agreed orders, not the two orders on them, not the deficiency notice and not any of the notices or disclosure statements. None is quoted here, because there is nothing public to quote. No defendant, and no lawyer for a defendant, was contacted for comment before publication.

21+. Play responsibly. If gambling stops being fun, help is free and confidential: call or text 1-800-GAMBLER, or see our responsible gaming resources.