Chumba Casino Florida Lawsuit: Appeal Dismissed Again

A Florida player spent nearly three years trying to sue VGW, the owner of Chumba Casino, under Florida law, and on September 28, 2026 the Eleventh Circuit threw out his appeal for the second time without reaching the question. His claims had already been dismissed in Delaware six months earlier, and the reason was one clause in VGW's own terms: the one saying Delaware law governs your entire relationship with the company.

The case is Eric Knapp v. VGW Holdings Limited, No. 26-11225. We read the opinion on the Eleventh Circuit's own server and pulled the underlying Delaware rulings from the docket, which is how we check every claim we publish.

What did the Eleventh Circuit decide?

It decided that it had no business hearing the appeal. The five-page opinion is marked NOT FOR PUBLICATION, was issued per curiam on the non-argument calendar by Circuit Judges Lagoa, Brasher and Abudu, and ends: "VGW's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction."

The summary sentence is the one to keep: "We lack jurisdiction over this appeal because it is not taken from a final or otherwise appealable decision of a district court within this circuit."

Knapp was appealing two orders from the Middle District of Florida: a February 6, 2025 order that transferred some of his claims to the District of Delaware under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and dismissed the rest, and a March 12, 2025 order denying reconsideration. His argument was that Delaware's later final judgment made those orders appealable at last. The panel rejected each route. Transfer orders are "neither final nor appealable under the collateral order doctrine". The partial dismissals were not final "because they did not resolve the litigation on the merits, as the remaining claims were pending in the District of Delaware after the orders were entered". And on the merger argument: "To the extent the orders are appealable by virtue of having merged into the final judgment, we lack jurisdiction to review them because the final judgment was entered by a court outside of this circuit."

This was the second time. A footnote records that Knapp challenged the same two orders in April 2025, before the Delaware judgment existed, and that the court "dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction" then too. A second footnote notes the appeal had been stayed since July 10, 2026.

What did the Delaware court actually hold?

This is the part that matters to a player, and it has nothing to do with jurisdiction.

On March 9 and March 12, 2026, Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly granted both pending motions to dismiss and terminated the case. He did not rule that VGW's games are legal. He ruled that Knapp had sued under the wrong state's law.

Clause 24.14 of the VGW terms Knapp accepted provides that "[t]hese Terms of Service, your use of [VGW's] Platform and our entire relationship will be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware in the United States, without regard for its choice of conflict of law principles." Knapp's amended complaint pleaded five counts, all under Florida law. Connolly's conclusion was that "under the choice-of-law provision in the Terms of Service, Knapp is only entitled to relief for claims brought under Delaware law, and that therefore, as a matter of law, Knapp's claims under Florida law are not claims upon which relief can be granted to him."

Knapp argued that Florida's public policy against illegal gambling should override the clause. Connolly held he had not carried that burden, for two reasons stated in the opinion. Florida does not have a "materially greater interest" than Delaware, because while Florida has an interest in protecting Knapp and the class he proposed to represent, "Delaware has a greater interest than Florida does in protecting the rights of VGW Luckyland, a company incorporated in Delaware." And applying Delaware law is not contrary to Florida's anti-gambling policy, because "like Florida, see Fla. Stat. § 849.46, Delaware prohibits unlicensed gambling".

Two further findings are worth carrying forward. The payment companies, Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. and Worldpay, LLC, never signed the VGW terms, but they enforced the same clause as "intended third-party beneficiaries", and the opinion records that Knapp did not dispute they could. The civil conspiracy count against them was separately dismissed under Rule 9(b), because the complaint alleged "no facts that plausibly imply that an individual employed by Moving Defendants had knowledge that VGW was engaged in illegal gambling or acted wrongfully."

And on the question a reader most wants answered, Connolly was explicit that he was not answering it. VGW had argued in the alternative that the claims failed even under Florida law. His footnote: "I need not and do not address those arguments."

Why was a Florida lawsuit heard in Delaware?

Two clauses in the same document. Clause 24.7 is a forum selection provision sending any dispute "exclusively to the courts in the State of Delaware", which is what Judge Carlos E. Mendoza enforced when he transferred the case out of Florida. Clause 23.3 is the arbitration agreement, and it lets a player "decline th[e] agreement to arbitrate ... within 30 days of first accepting these Terms of Service".

Knapp used that window. The opinions record that he registered between November 17 and November 29, 2023 and emailed VGW on November 30, 2023 to opt out of arbitration. That single email is why there is a public court record here at all, rather than a private arbitration. It is the same 30-day window we found across the sector in our survey of arbitration opt-out clauses, and the contrast is visible in the parallel case where VGW forced a Chumba and LuckyLand class action into arbitration on the strength of the same terms.

VGW is the operator behind Chumba Casino, LuckyLand Slots and Global Poker. The suit reached ground Florida's attorney general later covered with his own lawsuits, and it named payment companies as defendants the way those state filings later did.

Where does the Knapp v. VGW case stand now?

At the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, which is the appeals court for Delaware. The Eleventh Circuit said so itself: Knapp was required to, and did, "seek review in the Third Circuit, which has jurisdiction to review appeals from the District of Delaware".

One limit on the third row, stated plainly. The free public mirror of the Third Circuit docket was last refreshed on April 26, 2026 and carries eight entries, the newest dated April 20, 2026, all of them opening paperwork. That is what the mirror shows, not proof that nothing has happened since; the mirror lags the court's own system. We are not reporting the Third Circuit appeal as dormant.

What does this mean for a Florida player?

No money changes hands today. There is no settlement, no fund and no claim form, no class was ever certified, and no court has ruled on whether the dual-currency model is legal in Florida.

The transferable lesson is in the paperwork rather than the ruling. The clause that decided this case was not obscure and not disputed: it says the company's home state law governs the whole relationship, and it was enough to end five Florida-law claims without any court examining what VGW does. Payment processors who never signed it used it too.

If you are considering a claim against any sweeps operator, three clauses decide your options. VGW numbers them like this:

1. The choice-of-law clause - clause 24.14 here. It sets which state's statutes you can sue under. Knapp pleaded five counts, all under Florida law, and this clause reached every one of them.
2. The forum selection clause - clause 24.7 here. It sets which court hears the case. This is what moved the case out of Florida and into Delaware in February 2025.
3. The arbitration agreement and its opt-out window - clause 23.3 here. It decides whether you get a court at all. Knapp opted out by email inside 30 days, which is the only reason this record is public.

The opt-out is the only one of the three you can still act on, typically within 30 days of accepting the terms. Our running coverage of how sweeps terms change without notice explains why the version you agreed to matters.

The faster-moving Florida route is the attorney general's, not this one, and a state attorney general is not bound by anyone's account agreement. Our guide to whether sweepstakes casinos are legal carries the current state-by-state position. If you are choosing where to play in the meantime, our ranked list of sweepstakes casinos records what each operator's own documents say about state access and payouts.

Sources & documents

• Eric Knapp v. VGW Holdings Limited, No. 26-11225, opinion of September 28, 2026 (11th Cir.) - every quotation from the appeal ruling, the panel, the NOT FOR PUBLICATION marking and both footnotes, read September 28, 2026
• Memorandum opinion of March 9, 2026, Knapp v. VGW Holdings Limited (D. Del., D.I. 122) - clause 24.14, the Rule 12(b)(6) holding, the Restatement § 187(2) analysis and the footnote declining the Florida-law arguments
• Memorandum opinion of March 12, 2026, Knapp v. VGW Holdings Limited (D. Del., D.I. 124) - the third-party beneficiary finding for Fidelity National Information Services and Worldpay, and the Rule 9(b) conspiracy dismissal
• Eleventh Circuit docket, Eric Knapp v. VGW Holdings Limited - entry 25, "Opinion Issued", dated September 28, 2026, and the originating court information
• District of Delaware docket, Knapp v. VGW Holdings Limited, No. 1:25-cv-00147 - the assigned judge, the December 1, 2023 state court filing date, entries 121 to 127 and the March 12, 2026 termination
• Third Circuit docket, Eric Knapp v. VGW Holdings Limited, No. 26-1844 - the docketing date, the fee status, the eight entries and the April 26, 2026 refresh stamp

21+ only. If gambling stops being fun, call 1-800-GAMBLER or read our responsible gaming resources.