Case: 1:25-cv-15406 Document #: 43-1 Filed: 01/30/26 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:375
consistently with Congress’s intent by promulgating its blanket prohibition of event contracts involving gaming. 17 C.F.R. § 40.11(a)(1). As the CFTC explained, its “prohibition of certain ‘gaming’ contracts is consistent with Congress’s intent to ‘prevent gambling through the futures markets’ and to ‘protect the public interest from gaming and other events contracts.’” Provisions Common to Registered Entities, 76 Fed. Reg.44776, 44786 (Jul. 27, 2011) (quoting 156 Cong. Rec. S5906-07 (daily ed. Jul. 15, 2010) (colloquy between Sens. Feinstein and Lincoln)). Thus, the CFTC recognized that the Special Rule reinforced Congress’s existing policy against sports betting. Taken together, the Special Rule and the CFTC’s regulations undermine any claim that Congress intended to repeal IGRA and legalize sports betting. 3 Furthermore, only Coinbase (a private company with a direct interest in offering its lucrative sports-betting contracts)—not Congress or the CFTC—claims the CEA’s definition of “swap” displaces tribal, state, and federal regulation of sports betting. The 2010 CEA amendments’ text and legislative history, and subsequent CFTC actions, confirm Congress did not establish the CFTC to regulate sports betting, let alone assume the role of the nation’s sole sports-betting regulator. Coinbase’s attempt to foist authority onto the CFTC (which the CFTC does not claim for itself) indicates that Coinbase is wrong about the meaning of “swap.” See Event Contracts, 89 Fed. Reg. 48968, 48982–83 (June 10, 2024) (“The [CFTC] is not a gaming regulator … and [it] does not believe that it has the statutory mandate nor specialized experience
3 Under Coinbase’s theory, simply calling a sports wager a “swap”—regardless of whether it is actually a valid “swap”—and listing it for trade on a DCM automatically grants the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction to the detriment of all other regulatory authorities. See Pl. Br. Supp. Prelim. Inj. at 12–15, Dkt. No. 27. What, then, would prevent Coinbase from calling “contracts” on other traditional forms of gaming, like roulette, “swaps” and subjecting them to the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC? According to Coinbase, CFTC inaction—despite banning “gaming” contracts via 17 C.F.R. § 40.11(a)(1)—is all that is required to bless contracts blatantly designed for no other purpose than to enable gambling. Id. at 18–19.
9
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs