Chumba Casino Mississippi Lawsuit Restarts as Stay Lifts

A proposed class action asking a federal court to make Chumba Casino's owner VGW hand back every dollar Mississippi residents lost on Chumba, Global Poker and LuckyLand Slots restarted on August 28, 2026, when the clerk logged an order lifting the stay. It is a single claim under Mississippi's gambling-loss recovery statute, it covers losses going back at least three years, and the docket had been silent since October 15, 2025.

The case is Saulny v. VGW Holdings Limited, No. 3:24-cv-00619 in the Southern District of Mississippi, before District Judge Henry T. Wingate. We read the full docket and pulled the filings on August 31, and we have not seen the August 2026 entries reported anywhere else.

Nothing here decides anything. No court has held that VGW did anything unlawful, every claim below is an allegation from the plaintiff's own filing, and the two 2026 orders on this docket carry no readable text at all.

What is the Chumba Casino Mississippi lawsuit asking for?

One thing, under one statute. The complaint pleads a single count under Mississippi Code section 87-1-5, the state's gambling-loss recovery law, on behalf of a class it defines as "all citizens of the state of Mississippi who suffered losses of money on Chumba Casino, Global Poker, or LuckyLand Slots and VGW during the applicable limitations period". It asks for those losses going back "at least" three years before the complaint, plus costs. There is no damages multiplier and no separate fraud or consumer-protection count.

That statute is short and unusually blunt. The Mississippi Legislature's own published text of section 87-1-5 says that a person who "by playing at any game whatever" loses money and pays it over, "or his wife or children, may sue for and recover such money, property, or other valuable thing so lost and paid or delivered, or any part thereof, from the person knowingly receiving the same, with costs." The complaint's theory is that VGW is that "person knowingly receiving". The statute carves out gaming that Mississippi has actually licensed, which is the hinge the case turns on: the carve-out protects the state's permitted casino structures and cruise vessels, and the complaint's position is that VGW is not one of them.

Makayla Darrielle Saulny says she registered on the three sites between May 19 and June 28, 2024 and lost about $350 across them, which the filing breaks down as $250 on Chumba, $50 on LuckyLand and $50 on Global Poker. She is not suing over a big personal loss. The value of the case is the class.

If that shape looks familiar, it is the same machinery as the two Minnesota class actions against VGW, which run on Minnesota's own loss-recovery statute rather than on any new sweepstakes ban. Neither state has a sweepstakes-specific law. Both have an old statute that lets a loser sue. Those old gambling-loss provisions cut both ways: in Florida it is the state, not a player, asking a court to forfeit money wagered on sweeps sites.

What has happened on the Mississippi docket so far?

Saulny sued in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, and VGW removed the case to federal court on October 9, 2024. The clerk files it as a diversity case, nature of suit "370 Other Fraud", with a jury demanded by the plaintiff.

The only stay this docket records is the November 19, 2024 order staying discovery, which also cancelled the case management conference that had been set for January 7, 2025. That is the plain reading of what was lifted on August 28, and we say plainly that it is a reading: the August order is title-only in the public mirror, as is the August 21 order and a clerk's annotation logged on August 25. We cannot quote any of them and we are not going to characterise what they say beyond the label the clerk attached.

The amended complaint itself, entry 33, is not in the public mirror either. What is downloadable is the version the court gave leave to file: the 84-page proposed amended complaint attached to the April 24, 2025 motion. Everything this article reports about the claim comes from that document, and we cannot confirm that the August 25 filing is word for word the same.

Which VGW companies are being sued?

Four were named when the case was removed. The amendment adds two more, so the proposed complaint's caption and its demand for judgment both name six:

1. VGW Holdings Limited - named on removal
2. VGW Malta Limited - named on removal
3. VGW Luckyland Inc. - named on removal
4. VGW GP Limited - named on removal
5. VGW Holdings US Inc. - added by the amendment
6. VGW US Inc. - added by the amendment

Saulny's motion to amend states the reason for the two additions in one line: "It also adds 2 defendants, VGW HOLDINGS US INC. and VGW US INC."

Those two additions are the group's US-facing entities, and they are the same companies a federal court in Georgia identified as the counterparties on the LuckyLand terms. It is a personal-jurisdiction move, which is exactly what the motion says: the amendment "includes additional facts and details to show that this Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants."

Why has VGW's arbitration motion never been decided?

Because it never got that far, and because the plaintiff says she took herself out of arbitration before she ever sued.

On September 26, 2025, Judge Wingate found the motion to compel arbitration and the motion to dismiss moot "at this juncture" in the same order that conditionally granted leave to amend. Mooting motions when a superseding complaint is coming is ordinary case management, not a ruling on whether the arbitration clause binds her. VGW followed up on October 1, 2025 with a motion for attorney fees, which Saulny opposed on October 14. The docket does not show either of those resolved.

The substance is in the complaint. Saulny alleges that on May 31, 2024, "in accordance with the Terms of Service / Terms and Conditions contained in VGW's websites", she "timely 'opted out' of any obligations to participate in arbitration or alternate dispute resolution", along with the choice-of-law and forum-selection terms. She alleges VGW did not respond, and that she sent further emails on June 20, 2024 reaffirming it. The copies are filed as Composite Exhibit "A", which is on the docket but is not one of the documents anybody has pulled into the public mirror, so we can report that the exhibit exists and what the complaint says it contains, and nothing about the emails themselves. VGW has not answered the amended complaint and its position on the alleged opt-out is not on this docket.

That is worth flagging because arbitration is where most of these cases end. VGW got a class action from a player in Georgia sent to a JAMS arbitrator on July 1, 2026 by producing a dated business record showing she had accepted its terms, and in that order the court noted she "did not point to any evidence that she opted out of this arbitration agreement." Saulny's whole route to a courtroom is the claim that she did.

Can you opt out of a sweepstakes casino's arbitration clause?

With VGW, the terms say yes, according to a federal court reading them. The Georgia order describes Version 15.0 of the LuckyLand Slots terms this way: "A player may opt out of the arbitration agreement by sending an email to VGW Group stating that the player declines the arbitration agreement. Id. § 24.3." The same order records that "Version 15.0 permits a user to opt out of the arbitration provision if she does not wish to accept it."

So the route exists in writing, a court has described it, and it is a step you take at signup rather than after a dispute starts. What no court has yet said is whether an opt-out email like the one Saulny describes actually works. That question is now live on a docket that is no longer stayed, and it is the single thing most worth watching here, because it applies to every operator whose terms carry the same clause.

A second VGW docket moved on the same day. In King v. VGW, Ltd, No. 1:25-cv-15114 in New Jersey, entry 16 on August 28, 2026 is logged as an order on both a motion to compel arbitration and a motion to dismiss. That entry is title-only too, so we cannot tell you which way it went. That case had already been referred to arbitration by stipulation on January 29, 2026.

Can you still play Chumba Casino in Mississippi?

Not for prizes, and that was true before this order. Chumba Casino's own geo-block page, which we fetched on August 31, 2026, lists Mississippi under "Gold Coin free-to-play only (Sweepstakes not available)", alongside California, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee and West Virginia. Six other states, Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Montana, Nevada and Washington, are listed as "Currently not available". VGW wound Sweeps Coins out of Mississippi in mid-2025. LuckyLand Slots is a separate matter: that brand is being shut down everywhere, and its redemption deadline is September 14, 2026, not a Mississippi restriction.

Can Mississippi players get their losses back?

Not today, and not by signing anything. What the case can still affect is money you already lost. The class as pleaded is defined by past losses on Chumba Casino, Global Poker or LuckyLand, with a lookback of at least three years, so a Mississippi resident who played before the wind-down is inside the proposed definition whether or not they can log in today. No class has been certified and none may be. There is nothing to sign up for and nobody legitimate will ask you for a fee to join.

The other thing an unstayed case changes is discovery. A file that is no longer stayed is a file where documents can be demanded, and that is the only route by which anything about how these platforms were run in Mississippi becomes public. VGW is separately defending a Kentucky class action where eight of its companies waived service on August 27.

If you are choosing where to play rather than following the litigation, our ranked list of tested sweepstakes casinos and our explainer on how the dual-currency model works are the more useful pages.

Sources & documents

• Saulny v. VGW Holdings Limited, No. 3:24-cv-00619 (S.D. Miss.) - full docket, read August 31, 2026
• All docket entries on that case - 66 indexed records, including the four August 2026 entries, all without text
• Proposed amended complaint, entry 23-1 (84 pages, filed April 24, 2025) - the source for the class definition, the section 87-1-5 count and the opt-out allegation
• Motion to amend, entry 23 (filed April 24, 2025) - the source for the two added defendants
• Mississippi Legislature, text of Miss. Code section 87-1-5 - the loss-recovery statute and its licensed-gaming exceptions
• King v. VGW, Ltd, No. 1:25-cv-15114 (D.N.J.) - the second VGW docket that moved on August 28
• Order compelling arbitration in Baker v. VGW US Inc. (M.D. Ga., July 1, 2026) - the source for the section 24.3 opt-out description
• Chumba Casino geo-block page - the current state tiers, fetched August 31, 2026

21+. This is news reporting, not legal advice. All claims described above are allegations that no court has tested. If gambling is a problem, call or text 1-800-GAMBLER. Responsible gaming resources.