Uploaded February 2026 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Drake and Adin Ross are being sued in a proposed Class Action in federal court in Missouri. This isn't the only lawsuit against the dysfunctional duo, they're also being sued in Virginia.
Drake argues that the Missouri federal court has no authority to hear claims against him because he has no meaningful connection to the state beyond globally accessible internet content.
He says the lawsuit relies entirely on his nationwide and worldwide social media posts and livestreams promoting Stake, none of which were targeted at Missouri residents or tailored to the Missouri market. According to Drake, simply having content that can be viewed in Missouri is not enough to establish personal jurisdiction, and the plaintiff has failed to allege any purposeful conduct aimed at the state.
He emphasizes that he does not live in Missouri, does not conduct business there, and has never directed Stake related promotions specifically toward Missouri consumers.
Adin Ross argues that the Missouri federal court has no personal jurisdiction over him because his only alleged connection to the state is that his online content can be viewed there.
He says he has never lived in, traveled to, or done business in Missouri, and does not maintain any offices, agents, bank accounts, or employees in the state. Ross contends that all Stake related content he created was posted on nationally or globally accessible platforms like Kick, Instagram, and X, and that he never tailored, directed, or targeted that content specifically at Missouri residents or the Missouri market. According to Ross, the plaintiff’s theory improperly treats internet accessibility as a substitute for purposeful contact, which controlling law does not allow.
Drake and Adin Ross are being sued in a proposed Class Action in federal court in Missouri. This isn't the only lawsuit against the dysfunctional duo, they're also being sued in Virginia.
Drake argues that the Missouri federal court has no authority to hear claims against him because he has no meaningful connection to the state beyond globally accessible internet content.
He says the lawsuit relies entirely on his nationwide and worldwide social media posts and livestreams promoting Stake, none of which were targeted at Missouri residents or tailored to the Missouri market. According to Drake, simply having content that can be viewed in Missouri is not enough to establish personal jurisdiction, and the plaintiff has failed to allege any purposeful conduct aimed at the state.
He emphasizes that he does not live in Missouri, does not conduct business there, and has never directed Stake related promotions specifically toward Missouri consumers.
Adin Ross argues that the Missouri federal court has no personal jurisdiction over him because his only alleged connection to the state is that his online content can be viewed there.
He says he has never lived in, traveled to, or done business in Missouri, and does not maintain any offices, agents, bank accounts, or employees in the state. Ross contends that all Stake related content he created was posted on nationally or globally accessible platforms like Kick, Instagram, and X, and that he never tailored, directed, or targeted that content specifically at Missouri residents or the Missouri market. According to Ross, the plaintiff’s theory improperly treats internet accessibility as a substitute for purposeful contact, which controlling law does not allow.
