Case 1:25-cv-12578-RGS Document 41-1 Filed 10/16/25 Page 20 of 24
designated contract market (“DCM”). ECF No. 11 at 12, 16–17. As previously discussed, this argument fails. Regardless of Robinhood’s preemption arguments, its sports event contracts clearly constitute Class III gaming. Robinhood has not obtained a license to offer these bets pursuant to tribal ordinance or resolution; nor has Robinhood been authorized to conduct its sports betting pursuant to any tribal-state compact. Across the board, Robinhood does not geographically restrict its sports event contracts and, therefore, offers such sports betting on Indian lands 18 without complying with IGRA. Thus, each bet Robinhood facilitates on Indian lands violates IGRA, undermines tribal sovereignty, and reduces tribal gaming revenue and government funding. 18 Robinhood may argue, again as it recently did, that its activity does not occur “on Indian lands” because its sports event contracts are only accessible on the internet. See Plaintiff Robinhood’s [Proposed] Response to Brief of Amici Curiae, Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Dreitzer , No. 2:25-cv-01541, ECF No. 49 at 2–3 (Oct. 14, 2025). However, when an individual that is physically located on Indian lands places or initiates a bet or wager, even if that bet or wager is placed via the internet, that bet or wager takes place on Indian lands. See e.g. , 31 U.S.C. § 5362(10)(A) (“The term ‘unlawful internet gambling’ means to place, receive, or otherwise knowingly transmit a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.”); California v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel , 898 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2018) (rejecting argument that “patron’s action in selecting a wager … is [a] pre-gaming communication” and not a “gaming activity” under UIGEA because “[t]hat conduct is … subject to the provisions of the UIGEA as a ‘bet or wager’ that is initiated through the internet.” (quoting 31 U.S.C. § 5362(1))). Additionally, the IGRA implementing regulation at 25 C.F.R. § 293.26(c) requires consent of a Tribe to allow players to place bets from that Tribe’s Indian lands, even if those bets are accepted on a server physically located on another Tribe’s lands. By the same logic, offering and trading “contracts” to those physically located on Indian lands is activity that occurs “on Indian lands” for purposes of IGRA, just as offering and trading such contracts to those physically located in Massachusetts is activity that occurs in Massachusetts for purposes of Massachusetts gaming laws. 20
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs