Case: 25-7187, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 75.1, Page 24 of 43
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) (citation modified). Thus, the CFTC recognized that the Special Rule reinforced Congress’s existing policy against sports betting. Kalshi, one of Crypto.com’s competitors, even acknowledged this fact in a brief filed with the D.C. Circuit 16 months ago (and mere weeks before launching its nationwide sports betting app). See Appellee’s Br. at 41, KalshiEX LLC v. CFTC , No. 24-5205 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 15, 2024) (“An event or contract thus involves ‘gaming’ if it is contingent on a game or game-related event. The classic example is a contract on the outcome of a sporting event; as the legislative history directly confirms, Congress did not want sports betting to be conducted on derivatives markets .” (emphasis added)). The Special Rule and the CFTC’s regulations undermine any claim that Congress intended to repeal IGRA and legalize sports betting. That the CEA and IGRA overlap here is due only to Crypto.com’s backdoor attempt to evade comprehensive gaming regulations. 7
7 Under Crypto.com’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.’s Opening Br. at 4–5, 39–54, Dkt. No. 12.1. What,
16
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs