Case 1:25-cv-12578-RGS Document 1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 24 of 28
205 C.M.R. § 218.00 (sports wagering application requirements and procedures, including the
factors the Massachusetts Gaming Commission considers when determining whether to exercise
its discretion to grant a license), it would be entirely impracticable for Robinhood to be subject to
the often conflicting regulations of each of the states in which it makes federally authorized
event contract trading available to its customers.
60.
If Robinhood were to cease offering sports-related event contract trading
in Massachusetts, Robinhood would forgo significant business in Massachusetts, resulting in loss
of revenue. These economic losses would be unrecoverable because sovereign immunity bars
Robinhood from obtaining monetary damages for this impact on Robinhood’s business. See
Alden v. Maine , 527 U.S. 706, 712-13 (1999). Damages that are unrecoverable due to sovereign
immunity constitute irreparable harm. See, e.g. , Liu v. Noem , 780 F. Supp. 3d 386, 403 (D.N.H.
2025) (holding that plaintiff established irreparable harm because of “the government’s
sovereign immunity with regard to a claim seeking money damages”); Concord Hosp., Inc. v.
NH Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs. , 743 F. Supp. 3d 325, 363 (D.N.H. 2024) (holding that the
plaintiff showed irreparable harm because “sovereign immunity would bar plaintiff from
obtaining a damages award”).
61.
Abruptly discontinuing its Massachusetts customers’ ability to open new
sports-related event contract positions would also undermine customers’ confidence in
Robinhood and their reliance on its financial services, causing irreparable harm. KalshiEx
(D.N.J.) , 2025 WL 1218313, at *7; KalshiEx (D. Nev.) , 2025 WL 1073495, at *7; see also Ross-
Simons , 102 F.3d at 20.
62.
Further, taking a wait-and-see approach and defending any enforcement
action Massachusetts decides to file would leave Robinhood with uncertainty about the future of
24
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs