Case: 25-7187, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 75.1, Page 26 of 43
The CFTC’s amicus brief broadly defends prediction markets’ offering of sports-betting contracts subject to the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction. See CFTC Amicus Br. at 19, Dkt. No. 37.2. Strikingly, the CFTC makes no mention of the Special Rule, and for good reason: as discussed, the CFTC already promulgated regulations effecting a blanket ban of gaming contracts, like those mirroring sports bets. See 17 C.F.R. § 40.11(a). Similarly, the CFTC fails to acknowledge that Crypto.com’s preemption argument necessarily means the implied repeal of IGRA and other applicable federal laws. Further, the CFTC’s only Commissioner, Chairman Selig, has recently made statements and issued directives that some DCMs have claimed support their positions, and by extension would support Crypto.com’s position here. See Michael S. Selig, Chairman, CFTC, Remarks at the CFTC-SEC Event on Harmonization (Jan. 29, 2026), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/Speeches Testimony/opaselig1 [hereinafter Selig Statement] (announcing that he directed the CFTC to withdraw a 2024 proposed rule, which, if finalized, would have expressly prohibited political and sports-related event contracts and a 2025 CFTC Staff Letter suggesting that entities like Crypto.com create a contingency plan should courts—like this Court—issue a decision holding that sports-betting contracts are unlawful (citing 89 Fed. Reg. at 48982–83 and CFTC Staff Letter No. 25-36 at 2 n.3, n.4 (Sep. 30, 2025)); see also 91 Fed. Reg. 5386, 5387 (Feb. 6, 2026).
18
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs