Case 2:25-cv-00978-APG-BNW Document 75 Filed 09/15/25 Page 9 of 20
156 Cong. Rec. S5906–7 (daily ed. July 15, 2010). 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Because Crypto.com’s sports event contracts involve both gaming and unlawful activity
under state and federal law, they expressly violate 17 C.F.R. § 40.11(a)(1) and, therefore, fall
outside the scope of the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction.
Because Crypto.com’s sports event contracts constitute sports betting, they therefore
necessarily involve gaming in violation of § 40.11(a)(1). See Br. of Appellee at 17, KalshiEX LLC
v. CFTC , No. 24-5205 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 15, 2024), Doc. No. 2085055 (“An event
contract … involves “gaming” if it is contingent on a game or a game-related event—like the
Kentucky Derby, Super Bowl, or Masters golf tournament , all of which were mentioned in the
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
provision’s only legislative history.” (emphasis added)). For the same reason, Crypto.com’s sports
event contracts also violate various federal and state laws (as evidenced by the impetus for this
litigation). Crypto.com allows users as young as 18 years old to purchase its sports event contracts
anywhere nationwide, including on Indian lands. The purchase and sale of these sports event
contracts amount to speculative sports wagers, which constitutes gaming activity. Crypto.com’s
sports event contracts do not comply with the requirements for gaming on Indian lands under
IGRA. See 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1). Crypto.com’s sports event contracts therefore involve
unlawful activity under federal law. 7
6 In an amicus brief filed in the Third Circuit, Senator Lincoln effectively re-affirmed this position, stating: “Congress intended for the CFTC to use the special rule to guard against gambling on the exchanges. And it contemplated that sports contracts would fall within this regulatory sweep .” Br. of Amici Curiae Former Members of Cong. in Supp. of Pl.-Appellee at 29, KalshiEX, LLC v. Flaherty , No. 25-1922 (3d Cir. July 31, 2025), ECF No. 66 (emphasis added). 7 In addition to IGRA, Crypto.com’s sports event contracts also violate other federal laws, including the Wire Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1084, and UIGEA, 31 U.S.C. § 5361. In denying Kalshi’s motion for preliminary injunction, the Maryland District Court ruled that Kalshi’s proposed interpretation of the CEA “would necessarily entail at least a partial implied repeal of the IGRA and the Wire Act.” See Martin , 2025 WL at *10. Furthermore, Kalshi’s self-certifications are themselves violations of the CEA. Specifically, Kalshi’s self-certifications are “written certification[s] that the new contract … complies with [the CEA] (including regulations under [the CEA]).” 7 U.S.C. § 7a-2(c)(1). Because the sports event contracts do not comply with the CEA or the CFTC’s regulations—because they involve gaming— Crypto.com’s self-certifications attesting otherwise are incorrect and therefore invalid.
- 9 -
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs