Case 1:25-cv-12578-RGS Document 41-1 Filed 10/16/25 Page 10 of 24
contracts are related to the outcome of the games, not the occurrence or nonoccurrence of the games. 8 Robinhood’s sports event contracts are not hedging opportunities for interested parties to supplement the risk of a cancelled sporting event; instead, they are merely speculative wagers on the outcome of that sporting event or parts thereof. They are, therefore, not dependent upon, or otherwise related to, any potential “financial, commercial, or economic consequence.” Moreover, the other provisions within the definitions of “swap” and “excluded commodity” provide further insight into Congress’s intention when adding the terms to the CEA. See 7 U.S.C. §§ 1a(19)(i)–(iii), 1a(47)(A)(i), (iii)–(vi). Specifically, under the canon of noscitur a sociis , the potential “financial, economic, or commercial consequence[s]” required under the definition of “swap” or “excluded commodity” must relate to rates, currencies, commodities, securities, instruments of indebtedness, indices, and other such quantitative measures. Id. The outcome of a sporting event is not so limited. 4. The self-certification provisions of the CEA and CFTC regulations are invalid, and therefore Robinhood’s sports event contracts offered pursuant thereto are invalid The CEA’s self-certification provisions are invalid, rendering both the CFTC’s implementing regulations allowing for self-certification and the contracts issued pursuant to those regulations invalid. The statutory and regulatory framework governing new event contracts delegates sweeping authority to private entities to implement binding regulatory decisions without meaningful federal oversight. This violates the private nondelegation doctrine, 8 Robinhood and others do not limit their sports event contracts to simply who wins a particular sporting event, they also offer what are effectively “prop bets.” See, e.g. , Daniel O’Boyle, Off And Running: Kalshi Lists Its First Player Prop Bets , INGAME (Sept. 4, 2025), ***********.ingame.com/kalshi-lists-player-prop-bets/. Even if this Court believes that, for example, Jared Goff completing a touchdown constitutes an “occurrence,” there is no “financial, commercial, or economic consequence” associated with that particular touchdown. 10
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs