Virtual Gaming Worlds was still offering Chumba Casino, Global Poker and LuckyLand Slots in Arizona nearly two years after the state ordered the sweepstakes operator to stop. The Arizona Department of Gaming said as of Oct. 19 that it still considered the activity illegal and was evaluating enforcement options, but no civil or criminal charges had been brought.
The dispute began three days after the 2024 general election, according to the Fresno Bee. In a Nov. 8, 2024 letter, Douglas Jensen, the Gaming Department’s chief law enforcement officer, directed VGW to cease all online and other gambling activity in Arizona immediately.
Jensen alleged felony promotion of gambling, illegal control of an enterprise and money laundering. The agency warned that the operation of the three sites could expose the company to civil or criminal action.
VGW replied on Dec. 2, 2024 with an 18-page submission that it asked the department to treat as confidential commercial information. Its lawyer, Behnam Dayanim, compared the platforms with a McDonald’s Happy Meal sweepstakes, arguing that they did not amount to gambling because players could participate for free and could request sweeps coins by mail.
The department rejected that position eight days later, maintaining that VGW was promoting unregulated, unlicensed and illegal gambling. Jensen said the company had placed obstacles and limitations on free play. VGW’s sites let users play with gold coins and buy sweeps coins that can be redeemed for cash after qualifying wins.
Arizona remained absent from the 16 states listed as unavailable in VGW’s terms and conditions on Oct. 21. An Arizona Republic reporter seeking to register for Chumba Casino was asked for real-time location data, a Phoenix address, an Arizona driver’s licence and a utility bill.
The enforcement process has largely remained out of public view. The Gaming Department did not announce its allegations against VGW publicly, despite issuing releases about comparable actions involving other sweepstakes gaming businesses. It received consumer complaints about sweepstakes companies, including VGW, and referred complainants to the Attorney General’s Office.
The department said consumers had broadly reported problems receiving payouts after deposits, withdrawing winnings, and continuing to gamble or receive advertising despite joining Arizona’s voluntary self-exclusion list. The attorney general has authority to prosecute gaming-law violations, while the Gaming Department licenses operators and investigates unauthorised conduct.
The Attorney General’s Office said VGW was on its radar but cited jurisdictional and resource difficulties created by its overseas headquarters. Attorney General Kris Mayes asked the U.S. Attorney General’s Office for help prosecuting offshore gambling operations on Aug. 5, 2025. Her office also said its budget had been cut in nearly every recent budget cycle, including a 2.5% reduction in the current fiscal year.
VGW has given more than $200,000 to groups supporting Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs and Mayes while the Arizona matter remained unresolved. That included $70,000 to a Navajo County fundraising entity supporting the two Democrats and others, another $75,000 routed to that group through a national Democratic attorneys general fundraising organisation, and $65,000 from affiliate LuckyLand Inc. to a Hobbs-supporting group.
The company also gave $10,000 to a group backing Warren Petersen, Mayes’s opponent in the attorney general’s race, and $140,000 to Republican efforts to retain the Arizona House and Senate. VGW spent more than $1 million on political donations in 2026 while facing lawsuits from at least three state attorneys general.
VGW said it welcomed efforts by lawmakers to regulate its business model and was committed to discussing modern regulatory structures for its Social Plus games. It said it had full confidence in its compliance with the laws and regulations of the jurisdictions where it operates.
In a separate Oct. 22 statement, Mayes said she remained committed to enforcing Arizona gaming laws and defending the state’s authority to regulate gambling, arguing that unregulated gambling can harm consumers and that state and Tribal oversight is intended to protect them.
