Case 2:25-cv-01541-JCM-DJA Document 7 Filed 08/19/25 Page 10 of 31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
On May 8, 2025, the Board sent Robinhood a letter stating that it would consider Robinhood’s allowing Nevada customers to trade sports-related event contracts to be a violation of Nevada law. Robinhood’s voluntary compliance with the effect of the Board’s letter to Kalshi and the Board’s subsequent letter to Robinhood has already caused Robinhood irreparable harm, including damage to its reputation and goodwill and significant economic losses. On May 19, 2025, Robinhood met with the Board again and sought an agreement from the State of Nevada to permit Robinhood at least temporarily to offer its customers the same sports-related event contracts that are traded on Kalshi’s exchange. The Board declined Robinhood’s proposal. In light of this Court’s decision in KalshiEx , 2025 WL 1073495, and the Board’s refusal to reach an agreement with Robinhood to mitigate the substantial ongoing economic and reputational harms Robinhood continues to suffer in the marketplace while Kalshi is permitted to trade sports-related event contracts in Nevada, Robinhood has activated its Nevada customers’ access to opening new positions in sports-related event contracts. As a result, it now faces an immediate threat of civil penalties and criminal prosecution from the Board, along with the attendant reputational harm that any enforcement proceeding by the Board would cause. The Board has placed Robinhood in a situation that is fundamentally unfair and inconsistent with governing law. The same transactions are at issue here as were (and are) at issue in KalshiEx . All of the contracts are traded on Kalshi’s exchange; the only difference between the two cases is that the online portal that customers use to submit trade orders in this case is operated by Robinhood rather than Kalshi. But that is a distinction without a legal difference with respect to the question of preemption of Nevada’s gaming laws. Robinhood accordingly seeks the same relief this Court granted to Kalshi on the same legal basis—a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from enforcing against Robinhood the same Nevada laws (and a related Nevada gaming law) that this Court has already found are likely preempted by the CEA. Kalshi is a CFTC-designated contract market, and as this Court has found, transactions involving the sports-related event contracts traded on its exchange are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. Id. at *6.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
3
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs