Case: 25-7187, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 75.1, Page 29 of 43
Crypto.com has also argued below that the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (“UIGEA”), not tribal-state IGRA agreements or state gaming law, solely governs the online gaming aspect of its sports-betting contracts, and UIGEA excludes DCM transactions from its definition of “bet or wager.” Pl.’s Response to Br. of Amici Curiae et al. at 2–3, Crypto.com v. Dreitzer , No. 2:25-cv- 00978 (D. Nev. Sep. 29, 2025), Dkt. No. 92. Crypto.com claims that Congress’s exclusion of DCM transactions from the definition of “bet or wager” in 31 U.S.C. § 5362 “reflects Congressional intent” that UIGEA preempts IGRA and all tribal- state IGRA agreements. Id. But this ignores UIGEA’s own language that “[n]o provision of this subchapter shall be construed as altering, limiting, or extending any Federal or State law or Tribal-State compact prohibiting, permitting, or regulating gambling within the United States.” 31 U.S.C. § 5361(b). UIGEA 8 “prevents using the internet to circumvent existing state and federal gambling laws, but it does not create any additional substantive prohibitions.” California v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel , 898 F.3d 960, 965 (9th Cir. 2018).
8 The CFTC raises a similar UIGEA argument. See CFTC Amicus Br. at 24 n.15. Unlike Crypto.com, however, the CFTC makes no attempt to explain how the 2010 CEA amendments silently overrode other federal gaming law with longstanding restrictions on sports betting, including IGRA. This is for good reason: Congress did not express sufficient intent to repeal key components of other federal and state statutes regulating sports betting. See ER-26–30.
21
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs