Crypto.com Charges National Gaming Control Board in Court Concerning Sports Agreements
Here's the revised article:
Crypto.com locks horns with the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) in a federal lawsuit. The heart of the spat revolves around the governance of sports-related financial contracts, illustrating a power struggle between federal and state legislation.
According to Crypto.com, their sports-centric financial contracts fall under the purview of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Commodity Exchange Act. The company firmly believes that this federal law grants the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over these contracts, nullifying state-level regulations.
On the flip side, the NGCB contends that these contracts resemble sports gambling and should align with Nevada's state gaming laws. In May 2025, the NGCB served a cease-and-desist letter to Crypto.com, threatening severe consequences if the exchange continued offering these contracts to Nevada residents.
Crypto.com vehemently disagrees with the NGCB and argues that federal law trumps state authority in this instance. They petition the court to settle the matter, ensuring Nevada stays out of their affairs.
"The NGCB holds no authority to govern, let alone obstruct, derivatives trading conducted by a federally regulated exchange," the complaint asserts.
The lawsuit ensued following the aforementioned cease-and-desist letter. Crypto.com claims that adhering to Nevada's regulations, such as barring users in Nevada from accessing their sports-related contracts, would violate federal rules established by the CFTC. The CFTC advocates for equal accessibility to these markets irrespective of geographical location.
If Crypto.com were to exclude Nevada users, it may incur significant business harm that might be difficult to remedy. The exchange also points to recent court decisions involving Kalshi. In those cases, judges ruled that the CFTC's federal authority superseded state gambling laws, implying that states like Nevada cannot govern these contracts.
Crypto.com draws on these scenarios to bolster their claim that Nevada should not meddle in the matter. These verdicts, both in Nevada and New Jersey, affirmed the federal regulator's exclusive control over such financial instruments.
The exchange seeks a permanent injunction to prevent Nevada from enforcing its gaming laws on these contracts and a declaratory judgment confirming federal preemption.
Also, read about the SEC postponing its decision on Canary's Spot SUI ETF filing.
In this context, the article discusses a legal dispute between Crypto.com and the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) over the regulation of sports-related financial contracts. Meanwhile, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is considering the Spot SUI ETF filing by Canary. While Crypto.com argues that federal laws give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) exclusive jurisdiction over their sports-centric financial contracts, the SEC has yet to make a decision on Canary's ETF filing, which falls under the category of exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in the finance industry.
