ACS News · Legal News
Stake.us Seeks Default Judgment Against Illinois Player
Sweepsteaks Limited, operator of Stake.us, is asking a federal court in Illinois to confirm an arbitration award and enter default judgment against a player who is now seeking to have the default set aside.
Stake.us court case at a glance
- Sweepsteaks Limited filed the federal action on June 10, 2026 seeking confirmation of an arbitration award involving Szymon Zawadzki.
- Sweepsteaks requested entry of default on August 28 and default was entered on August 29.
- The company moved for default judgment on September 2.
- Zawadzki has since appeared and is seeking to have the default set aside while opposing confirmation of the arbitration award.
- As of September 6, no final default judgment had been entered.
What happened in the Stake.us case?
Sweepsteaks Limited, which operates Stake.us, filed Sweepsteaks Limited d/b/a Stake.us v. Zawadzki in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 10, 2026.
The action seeks confirmation of an arbitration award involving defendant Szymon Zawadzki.
A September 3 court filing states that Zawadzki was served on August 5, Sweepsteaks requested entry of default on August 28 and default was entered on August 29.
Sweepsteaks then moved for default judgment on September 2. The court requested an interest calculation on September 3 and the company filed a supplemental submission that day.
Zawadzki has now appeared in the proceedings and is attempting to have the default set aside while challenging confirmation of the underlying arbitration award.
Stake.us case timeline
- Zawadzki filed a separate federal action that, according to his later filing, seeks among other things to vacate the arbitration award.
- The final arbitration award at issue was entered, according to Zawadzki’s September 3 filing.
- Sweepsteaks Limited filed its federal action seeking confirmation of the award.
- Zawadzki was served in the confirmation case.
- Sweepsteaks requested entry of default.
- Default was entered.
- Sweepsteaks moved for default judgment.
- Zawadzki filed papers seeking to set aside the default and contest confirmation of the arbitration award.
- A telephone conference is scheduled before U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.
Why the case matters for sweepstakes casino players
The case is notable because it shows what can happen after a customer dispute has already moved into arbitration.
Arbitration provisions are often discussed when a player takes a dispute to court and an operator argues that the claim should instead be handled through arbitration. Here, the procedural direction is different: Sweepsteaks itself has gone to federal court seeking confirmation and enforcement of an arbitration award.
The case should not be treated as a ruling that sweepstakes casinos are legal or illegal generally. It also does not establish a new statewide Illinois rule for the sweepstakes model.
It concerns an individual arbitration award and the subsequent federal proceedings over whether that award should be confirmed and enforced.
What Stake.us players should know about arbitration
Stake.us’s Terms & Conditions contain an individual arbitration provision in Clause 26 and describe an arbitration opt-out process with a specified deadline.
The terms in force today should not automatically be assumed to be identical to the version that governed the dispute now before the Illinois federal court.
The case is a useful reminder to read a platform’s dispute-resolution provisions rather than treating them as routine legal text. Players should understand what process the terms say applies to disputes and whether an opt-out procedure is available.
What players should do now
This case does not create a general action deadline for Stake.us users, but it highlights the importance of keeping clear account and dispute records.
- Keep copies of the terms that apply when an important dispute arises.
- Preserve transaction and redemption records.
- Keep relevant account notices and customer-support communications.
- Do not ignore formal arbitration or court documents addressed to you.
- Consider obtaining advice from a qualified attorney if you become personally involved in litigation or arbitration.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice.
Does the case change Stake.us availability?
The court filings do not indicate that the proceedings change balances, redemptions or account conditions for Stake.us customers generally.
The case also should not be presented as the reason for a state opening or closure. Stake.us’s terms list Illinois among its excluded territories, separately from this arbitration-enforcement litigation.
Players checking where sweepstakes casinos are currently available can use the ACS sweepstakes casinos by state guide and then confirm eligibility against the operator’s latest rules.
What remains uncertain?
Several important issues remain unresolved.
As of September 6, the court had not entered a final default judgment.
Zawadzki is asking the court to set aside the default and is opposing confirmation of the arbitration award. Those are his legal positions, not findings already accepted by the court.
Zawadzki has also asked for the arbitration-confirmation case to be treated as related to his earlier federal lawsuit concerning the same award. How the proceedings will ultimately be handled remains unresolved.
The next scheduled court event is the telephone conference on September 10.
Responsible-play and player-safety reminder
Account disputes can become particularly stressful when significant spending or losses are involved. Sweepstakes casino play should remain entertainment rather than a way to recover losses or solve financial problems.
Players who find that spending or gameplay is becoming difficult to control can use cooling-off, account-closure or self-exclusion tools where available.
The ACS Responsible Sweepstakes Gaming guide explains spending limits, breaks, warning signs and support options.
The bottom line
Sweepsteaks Limited is seeking a default judgment in Illinois federal court as part of its effort to confirm and enforce an arbitration award against an individual player.
The player has appeared and is attempting to set the default aside while challenging confirmation of the award, so the dispute remains unresolved.
A telephone conference is scheduled for September 10, 2026. Sweepsteaks is seeking judgment, while Zawadzki is contesting the default and confirmation of the arbitration award.
