Image Credit: Shutterstock
- Crypto.com’s prediction-market exchange and Novig sued Missouri officials on Oct. 16 to block enforcement against their sports event contracts.
- The lawsuits follow cease-and-desist letters issued on Sept. 18 demanding that operators obtain state licenses and comply with sports-wagering requirements.
- The operators contend that the Commodity Exchange Act places their transactions under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC.
Crypto.com’s prediction-market exchange and Novig sued Missouri officials on Oct. 16, seeking to block state enforcement against their sports event contracts. The lawsuits follow cease-and-desist letters demanding compliance with Missouri’s sports-wagering requirements.
Exchange Operators File in Separate Federal Districts
North American Derivatives Exchange, doing business as OG.com Prediction Markets, filed in the Western District of Missouri. The Crypto.com-linked exchange asks the court to declare Missouri’s restrictions inapplicable and block their enforcement. It names Attorney General Catherine Hanaway and state gaming officials as defendants.
Ludlow Exchange, doing business as Novig, filed its case in the Eastern District of Missouri. The court’s Oct. 16 filing record confirms its complaint against Hanaway and two Missouri Gaming Commission officials.
Missouri Demands Licenses for Sports Event Contracts
Hanaway’s office announced its enforcement action on Sept. 18. It named Crypto.com, Novig, Kalshi, Polymarket, Robinhood and Underdog as recipients of cease-and-desist letters.
The attorney general argues that offering sports event contracts constitutes sports wagering under Missouri law. Her office said operators must obtain Missouri Gaming Commission licenses, pay applicable taxes and fees, and prevent people under 21 from placing sports wagers.
Missouri’s framework imposes a 10% tax on sports-betting gross receipts. The attorney general’s announcement threatened enforcement against operators that continued offering the contracts without state authorization.
Operators Ask Courts to Recognize Federal Authority
The operators contend that the Commodity Exchange Act places their transactions under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Novig’s complaint seeks to prevent Missouri officials from applying state gambling and sports-wagering laws to those transactions.
That position directly conflicts with Missouri’s claim that sports event contracts do not qualify as federally regulated swaps exempt from state gambling requirements. The competing interpretations remain legal arguments rather than findings resolving these lawsuits.
The reviewed records establish that complaints were filed, and court protection was requested. They do not establish that either operator obtained an injunction preventing Missouri from enforcing its restrictions.
