Case 2:25-cv-00978-APG-BNW Document 75 Filed 09/15/25 Page 5 of 20
market (“DCM”) and (2) its sports event contracts are listed for trade as “swaps” on its platform as
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
a DCM. ECF No. 42 at 3, 17. As discussed further below, this argument fails.
But regardless of Crypto.com’s preemption arguments, its sports event contracts clearly
constitute Class III gaming. Crypto.com has not obtained a license to offer these bets pursuant to
tribal ordinance or resolution; nor has Crypto.com been authorized to conduct its sports betting
pursuant to any tribal-state compact. Across the board, Crypto.com does not geographically
restrict its sports event contracts and, therefore, offers such sports betting on Indian lands without
complying with IGRA. Thus, each bet Crypto.com offers on Indian lands violates IGRA,
undermines tribal sovereignty, and reduces tribal gaming revenue and government funding.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
B.
The CEA does not preempt IGRA
If taken as true, Crypto.com’s argument—that the CTFC has exclusive jurisdiction over its
sports betting—necessarily presumes that the CEA preempts IGRA in its entirety. In a similar
case before the Maryland District Court, another company offering sports event contracts (Kalshi)
attempted to make this argument, stating that even if “IGRA’s definition of ‘gaming’”
encompassed sports event contracts, “the CEA’s exclusive jurisdiction provision would displace
any attempt by tribes to regulate those contracts.” Pl.’s Reply in Supp. of Prelim. Inj. at 7,
KalshiEX LLC v. Martin , No. 1:25-cv-01283-ABA (D. Md. May 19, 2025), ECF No. 29.
Ultimately, the court disagreed with Kalshi and denied its motion for preliminary injunction, which
is now on appeal before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. KalshiEX, LLC v. Martin , No. 1:25-
cv-01283-ABA, 2025 WL 2194908 (D. Md. Aug. 1, 2025).
Congress has been regulating commodity futures for more than a century, historically
focusing on agricultural commodities. See Merrill Lynch v. Curran , 456 U.S. 353, 357–63 (1982).
However, in 2010, Congress amended the CEA, in part, to allow for “event contracts” through the
“Special Rule.” See 7 U.S.C. § 7a-2(c)(5)(C). Recognizing the slippery slope of event contracts,
Congress specifically authorized the CFTC to prohibit certain types of event contracts, including
those that involve gaming and other activity that is unlawful under federal or state law. Id.
Shortly after Congress enacted the Special Rule, the CFTC adopted implementing
regulations, whereby it exercised such discretion and explicitly prohibited the listing and trading of
- 5 -
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs