Case: 25-7187, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 75.1, Page 16 of 43
What’s more, contrary to what Crypto.com maintains, id. at 60–62, if sports- betting contracts are “swaps” subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC, then all off-market sports betting—including sports betting conducted by tribes under IGRA—is prohibited by the CEA. As discussed further below, Crypto.com’s interpretation of “swaps” is so broad that it necessarily consumes all sports betting (and potentially other kinds of class III gaming). And with one inapplicable exception, the CEA prohibits off-market swaps. See 7 U.S.C. § 2(e). Consequently, if all sports-betting contracts are swaps, “then all sports betting must be done on a [designated contract market (‘DCM’)].” ER-27. Crypto.com’s argument thus does double violence. First, by permitting Crypto.com to offer sports betting on Indian lands, its argument sweeps aside Congress’s recognition that “Indian tribes have the exclusive right to regulate gaming activity on Indian lands ….” 25 U.S.C. § 2701(5). Second, it would prohibit tribes from offering sports betting that IGRA plainly authorizes. See 25 C.F.R. § 502.4(c).
are pooled and players bet against each other rather than a “house”—is considered gaming. See, e.g. , NRS § 464.005(8). Additionally, IGRA regulations define class II gaming to include, among other things, nonbanking card games that are necessarily played without a “house.” 25 C.F.R. § 502.3(c).
8
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs