Crypto.com has called for a preliminary injunction to allow it to keep offering its sports event contracts in Nevada, arguing the state’s Gaming Control Board “unlawfully asserted jurisdiction” when it issued a cease-and-desist order last month.
The cryptocurrency platform sued the state’s gaming authorities in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on Tuesday, following the state’s decision on May 20 to order the business to stop offering sports event contracts. The state argues that these contracts — which allow users to bet on the outcomes of sporting events, but are officially regulated as commodities futures products — are an unlawful form of gaming.
The lawsuit is the second filed in the same court by a Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)-licensed designated futures market (DCM) against Nevada authorities following a cease-and-desist order related to sports event contracts. Kalshi is pursuing similar legal action, and has already won an injunction against the state, allowing its markets to stay open. On Tuesday, the court also rejected Nevada’s motion to dismiss the case brought by Kalshi.
On Thursday, the cryptocurrency platform followed its initial complaint with a call for an injunction, similar to the one Kalshi already won. It argues that the Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC “exclusive jurisdiction to regulate commodities and futures on designated exchanges.”
It also made the case that while some people do gamble on the outcomes of sporting events, this does not mean that a contract on the outcome of these events is itself gambling.
“What the NGCB has failed to explain is how other people’s gambling on the outcome of a given event could transform the otherwise lawful derivative contracts listed by CDNA [Crpyto.com Derivatives North America] into gambling subject to state regulation,” it said.
Crypto.com advanced many of the same arguments made by Kalshi, and referenced the platform by name 38 times in its petition for an injunction.
“Chief Judge Gordon of this Court and Judge Kiel of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey have already recognized the preemptive effect of the CEA on state gaming law as applied to Sports Event Contracts traded on DCMs,” Crypto.com said. “On June 3, 2025, Chief Judge Gordon denied defendants’ motion to dismiss in Kalshi v. Hendrick, affirming his prior ruling that ‘Kalshi was likely to prevail on its arguments that the CEA preempts Nevada gaming laws’ and rejecting other arguments for dismissal.”
Crypto.com revealed in the filing that it has 11,900 users with permanent addresses in Nevada. However, that includes its cryptocurrency trading users who may not buy and sell sports event contracts.
“The market uncertainty and disruption caused by those users abruptly being frozen in or leaving the market could cause other users to leave the CDNA market, as they would lose confidence in the integrity of the market,” it said.
Crypto.com launched sports event contracts in December. It offers a more limited offering than Kalshi, and is believed to see less activity, though Crypto.com does not publish volume figures.
Crypto.com cease-and-desist order
The platform also filed a copy of the cease-and-desist order it received as evidence.
The order says: “The Nevada Gaming Control Board is aware that Crypto.com has been offering, and continues to offer, event-based wagering contracts in Nevada on sporting events through its exchange.
“[…] Presuming that Crypto.com consulted with Nevada legal counsel, your company was undoubtedly advised that Nevada has a long and storied history of strictly regulating gaming activity. Encompassed within such strict regulation is the requirement that a person must be licensed to operate a sports pool in Nevada.”
Crypto.com also attached its reply, which questioned how the state could issue a cease-and-desist when its similar order against Kalshi had already been blocked via an injunction. A representative of the Nevada Gaming Control Board said the judge in the case against Kalshi “specifically clarified” that the injunction only applied to Kalshi.
