LAS VEGAS, NV – The Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) has once again cautioned its licensees that sports event contracts are considered sports betting under state law, following a pivotal federal court ruling.
Federal Ruling Reinforces NGCB Position
Last week, U.S. District Judge Andrew Gordon sided with the NGCB, ruling that companies such as Kalshi, Robinhood, and Crypto.com offering shares tied to sporting outcomes are engaged in unlawful gambling. These firms argued their contracts were financial instruments regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Gordon rejected that claim, affirming the NGCB’s stance that such activity constitutes unlicensed wagering.
Licensees Put on Notice
In response, the NGCB issued a fresh advisory to casinos, sportsbooks, and other licensees, warning against any relationship with exchanges offering sports event contracts without a Nevada license.
- Robinhood and Crypto.com have agreed to halt operations in Nevada.
- Kalshi, however, continues to offer sports event contracts and is appealing Gordon’s decision—a move the NGCB says it will “vigorously oppose.”
The Board clarified that contracts based on outcomes of sporting events, esports, the World Series of Poker, the Oscars, or political elections fall squarely under its jurisdiction. Such offerings are permitted only if the operator holds a nonrestricted gaming license with sports pool approval and complies with Nevada’s wagering requirements.
Integrity Concerns
The NGCB warned that licensees without sports pool privileges who engage in or partner with unlicensed exchanges risk their suitability to maintain a Nevada gaming license. The notice further cautioned that involvement in unlawful wagering—even in other states—may call into question the “good character and integrity” of a licensee.
Wider Implications
Judge Gordon’s ruling could mark a turning point for CFTC‑regulated exchanges offering sports event contracts. With the federal court affirming that these contracts are gambling rather than derivative investments, other state regulators may follow Nevada’s lead.
Several states—including Arizona, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania—have already issued similar opinions, aligning with Nevada’s position that sports event contracts are a form of sports betting.
