After a judge denied Crypto.com’s request for a preliminary injunction against the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB), the state regulator said on Friday that the company will stop offering sports event contracts in the state.
As reported by the Nevada Independent’s Howard Stutz, NGCB Chairman Mike Dreitzer sent a notice to licensees on Oct. 24 to update them on the situation, 10 days after U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Gordon rejected Crypto.com’s motion for an injunction that would have allowed it to keep its sports contracts online in the state while the issue moves through the courts.
Dreitzer noted that Crypto.com has indicated that it intends to appeal that decision. But, in the meantime, it will hit pause on sports in the Silver State.
“The Board has confirmed that after Nov. 3, 2025, and until the resolution of its appeal, Crypto.com will not be offering sports event contracts to Nevada residents,” Dreitzer wrote. “That means Crypto.com will no longer hold open positions in sports event contracts for Nevada residents and will not permit new contracts to be opened.”
NGCB leadership reiterated in the notice what they have said all along: They consider event contracts on sports and other things such as political elections to be a form of wagering under Nevada law.
SBC Americas reached out to Crypto.com for comment.
Same issue, different tunes
Crypto.com sued the NGCB this year after the board sent it a cease-and-desist order relating to its sports contracts.
The NCGB sent similar notices to other prediction markets offering sports, such as Kalshi. Though he later denied Crypto.com’s motion, Gordon previously approved Kalshi’s request for a preliminary injunction, meaning that Kalshi is currently still able to offer sports contracts in Nevada.
Crypto.com claimed in its lawsuit that state gaming regulation should be superseded by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) federal oversight of derivatives marketplaces. Gordon decreed that Crypto.com’s sports contracts do not qualify as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and are therefore subject to Nevada’s gaming regulations. In his contrasting Kalshi decision, he wrote that the CEA superseded state regulations and opined that Kalshi had a good chance to succeed based on the merits of its case.
Careful where you tread
In the latest correspondence Dreitzer reiterated the NGCB’s stanceon sports-related event contracts that was clearly stated in a separate an Oct. 15 memo to licensees on Oct. 15 spelling out the board’s stance on event contracts in more detail.
Other states have issued similar warnings to their gaming operators in recent weeks.
The Ohio Casino Control Commission (OCCC) sent a letter to licensees in late August emphasizing that sports contracts equate to unapproved sports betting and that participating sportsbooks could risk losing their license. Subsequently, the Arizona Department of Gaming (ADG) and the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB) both cautioned all licensed gaming operators and suppliers that any direct or indirect involvement in the provision of sports event contracts in any state would have repercussions for their in-state license.
