Fliff Class Action Over Robocalls Promoting Sidepot Casino

Fliff, Inc. faces a class action filed in Philadelphia federal court on September 13, 2026 over prerecorded marketing calls to people's cell phones promoting "the Side Pot Social Casino", calls the complaint says gave no key to press to make them stop. It asks for at least $500 for every such call, for everyone in the country who got one in the past four years.

The case is Brock v. Fliff Inc, No. 2:26-cv-07012-JHS, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, assigned to Judge Joel H. Slomsky. We pulled the nine-page complaint off the federal docket this evening and read it. The clerk issued the summons on September 14. Fliff has filed nothing, so everything below is one side's account of events, and no court has found any of it true.

A caption search of the federal docket returns three Fliff cases in all: this one, and two 2023 consumer-credit suits in California district courts. On that search, this is the first Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim brought against the company.

What does the Fliff robocall lawsuit allege?

Five calls to one phone, and a pattern behind them.

Jalen Brock says he received artificial or prerecorded voice calls "on or about February 3, 2026, March 5, 2026 (x2), May 12, 2026, and June 11, 2026" to a cell number ending 1176. The complaint lists five originating numbers: 681-610-0539, 816-831-8785, 573-960-0981, 660-276-1116 and 314-891-0883. It does not say who holds those lines, and a number displayed on a handset is not evidence of who placed the call.

Two details do the legal work. The first is consent: Brock pleads that he "never provided Defendant with express written consent authorizing Defendant to transmit prerecorded sales or marketing calls", and that "in or about January of 2026, Plaintiff asked Defendant to stop calling the 1176 Number but the calls have continued." The second is the recording itself. FCC rules require a prerecorded telemarketing message to offer an automated opt-out within two seconds of identifying the caller. The complaint says these did not: they "did not provide an automated, interactive voice- and/or key press-activated opt-out mechanism to make a do-not-call request, and did not otherwise provide instructions on how to make future calls stop."

Nothing in the filing describes Brock as a Fliff account holder. That matters, because a robocall recipient does not have to be a customer to sue over the call.

What do Fliff's own terms say about calling you?

Less than you would expect, and that gap is the most useful thing here for a player.

We read the Fliff terms of use, privacy policy and sweepstakes rules on getfliff.com today. The terms describe Fliff contacting you by phone in exactly one place, section 10.6: "By providing your mobile phone number to Fliff, you consent to receive SMS text messages for the purpose of two-factor authentication ('2FA') and account security verification." Section 10.6.5 then draws the line itself, saying that consent "is distinct from any other marketing or promotional communications you may receive from us". The words prerecorded, robocall and telemarketing appear nowhere in the document.

The privacy policy describes promotional contact as "newsletters and emails about offers, rewards, and new features", and gives one route out: "You may opt out of promotional communications by clicking unsubscribe at the bottom of the email." An unsubscribe link at the bottom of an email does nothing for a voicemail. The sweepstakes rules, the third document, use the word "phone" not once.

We also pulled all 67 articles in Fliff's help centre. Across those 67 articles and all three legal documents, there is no consent to a marketing phone call, no mention of a prerecorded message, and no do-not-call procedure of any kind.

That is the operator's published position, not a defence it has made in court. Fliff may well argue it had consent from another source.

Is Sidepot Casino a Fliff product?

The complaint says so. Fliff's own published documents never mention it, and Sidepot's cannot be read from here.

Start with Fliff's own side. The name Side Pot, however spelled, does not appear in the Fliff terms of use, the privacy policy, the sweepstakes rules or any of the 67 help-centre articles. The only document we have found that ties the two together is the complaint itself.

Sidepot's side is closed. sidepot.us answers every path we requested with the same 1,929-byte page reading "GEO RESTRICTION - Gaming Denied", including a URL we invented as a control, so its rulebook is unreadable from here. What we can say from a primary source is that New York's attorney general named both companies. The June 6, 2025 announcement that 26 sweepstakes platforms agreed to stop selling Sweeps Coins in New York lists "Fliff" and "Sidepot" as separate entries on the same list of 26. The state treated them as two platforms; the complaint treats Side Pot as one of Fliff's products. Neither document settles who owns what.

Fliff itself has been moving. In August we reported that Fliff applied to become a federally registered futures broker without telling the players holding sweeps coin balances. Its terms exclude Washington and Idaho from the Fliff Coin games.

Will Fliff's arbitration clause stop this class action?

On its own paperwork Fliff would send any user to individual arbitration. Brock may not be a user.

Fliff's terms open with a capitalised notice that any "PAST, PENDING, OR FUTURE DISPUTES" go to "FINAL AND BINDING ARBITRATION ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS ONLY", and that a user "MAY NOT PROCEED AS A CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, MEMBER OR PART OF ANY PROPOSED CLASS". There is an escape hatch, and the clock on it is short: a user may opt out "WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF ENTERING THIS AGREEMENT", by emailing an opt-out address the terms give in section 20.12. The terms are blunt about the deadline: "OPT-OUT REQUESTS SENT AFTER THE THIRTY (30) DAY PERIOD SHALL BE NULL AND VOID." We set out how that window works across the industry in our look at the 30-day sweeps arbitration opt-out, and it is the same clause that has pushed most sweeps class actions out of public view this year. Between April and July, judges sent four Modo.us class actions into individual arbitration on the same kind of wording, two of them treating a player who let the 30-day window lapse as having chosen arbitration freely.

The catch for Fliff is the one above: if Brock never opened an account, there may be no agreement to enforce against him. That question, not the robocalls, is likely to be the first thing the judge decides.

What should you do if a sweepstakes casino is robocalling you?

Three things, none of which requires a lawyer.

1. Keep the voicemail. A saved recording with a timestamp is the evidence in a TCPA claim, and it is the thing nobody has after they delete it.
2. Make the do-not-call request in writing, not by voice. Support ticket or email, with the date. A verbal request to a recording leaves no record, and the complaint alleges a January request that went nowhere.
3. If you have just opened an account anywhere, count your 30 days. Fliff's terms give a new user thirty days from accepting them to opt out of arbitration in writing, and say a late request is void. That window, not the robocall rules, is what decides whether a player can ever be part of a case like this one, and the same clause runs across most of the category. How sweepstakes casinos work covers what else you are agreeing to, and our Pennsylvania sweepstakes casino page has where the plaintiff's own state sits on sweeps play.

Neither Fliff nor Sidepot is a brand we rank. Our ranked list of sweepstakes casinos covers 30 operators we have tested, whether sweepstakes casinos are legal sets out where the state lines fall, and the way we check a claim like this one is set out in how we verify.

Sources & documents

• Class action complaint, Brock v. Fliff Inc, No. 2:26-cv-07012-JHS (E.D. Pa.) - nine pages, ECF-stamped "Filed 09/13/26", signature block dated September 11, 2026. Every quotation attributed to the complaint comes from this PDF, downloaded September 14, 2026
• Docket for the same case - four entries as of today: the complaint on September 13, then the magistrate-consent notice, the mediation notice and the issued summons on September 14. No appearance or response from Fliff
• Caption search for Fliff on the federal docket - three cases, read September 14, 2026: this one, plus two 2023 consumer suits in the Central and Northern Districts of California
• Fliff terms of use, privacy policy and sweepstakes rules - all three fetched September 14, 2026; the source of section 10.6, the arbitration and class-waiver notice, the 30-day opt-out wording, the email-unsubscribe line and the Washington and Idaho exclusion. Searched for prerecorded, robocall, telemarketing, do-not-call and Side Pot, with no match in any of the three
• Fliff help centre article index - all 67 articles pulled and searched September 14, 2026; no article covers marketing calls, do-not-call requests or Side Pot
• sidepot.us - fetched September 14, 2026. Every path, including one we invented, returns the identical 1,929-byte "GEO RESTRICTION" page, so no Sidepot document could be read
• New York Attorney General, June 6, 2025 announcement on illegal online sweepstakes casinos - the source for "Fliff" and "Sidepot" appearing as separate entries among the 26 platforms that received cease-and-desist letters

The allegations in this article are allegations in a pending case and nothing in it has been tested. We did not seek comment from Fliff, Inc. and have none. Where the complaint's account and the operator's published documents disagree, both are quoted rather than reconciled.

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.