Robinhood’s Legal Gambit: Suing New Jersey and Nevada Over Sports Contracts

Robinhood throws a legal Hail Mary—filing suits against New Jersey and Nevada in a bold challenge to state sports betting contract regulations.

Disrupting the Game

The trading platform known for democratizing finance now takes on two gambling heavyweights, arguing their contract rules stifle innovation and competition. No specific financial damages cited—just pure regulatory defiance.

Legal Blitz or Blunder?

Nevada’s established sports betting framework and New Jersey’s aggressive market entry face Robinhood’s argument: outdated contracts protect incumbents, not consumers. The move reeks of either genius expansion strategy or a desperate pivot from recent crypto headaches.

Wall Street’s watching—another fintech firm betting on lawyers instead of actual innovation. Because when your business model hits a rough patch, why not sue two states? Classic diversification.

TLDR

• Robinhood sues Nevada and New Jersey over threats to its sports event contracts.

• The lawsuits argue state regulators are ignoring federal court rulings favoring Kalshi.

• Robinhood seeks court orders to block state regulators from taking enforcement actions.

• The dispute centers around the legality of sports event contracts regulated by the CFTC.

Robinhood Derivatives has initiated lawsuits against regulators in Nevada and New Jersey to prevent potential enforcement actions over its offering of sports event contracts. The trading platform claims that despite favorable federal court rulings for Kalshi, a competitor in the same space, state regulators in Nevada and New Jersey continue to threaten legal action. These sports event contracts, which allow users to bet on the outcomes of events like sports games and elections, are facilitated by Kalshi, which is regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

Robinhood claims that both states have ignored federal court rulings, which barred the states from taking action against Kalshi for offering similar contracts. The company argues that it should be treated similarly and allowed to offer these contracts without interference from state regulators. The dispute arises from the tension between state gambling laws and federal regulations governing prediction markets.

Robinhood Legal Precedent and Ongoing Lawsuits

The lawsuits filed by Robinhood are based on federal court decisions earlier this year that sided with Kalshi in its legal battles against Nevada and New Jersey regulators. Kalshi had been issued cease-and-desist letters by the gaming authorities in both states, claiming that their sports prediction markets violated state gambling laws.

However, federal courts ruled in Kalshi’s favor, affirming that the CFTC, not state regulators, had jurisdiction over such contracts.

Robinhood is not just a trading app anymore and with kalshi it is now building prediction markets on NFL and NCAA games.

On paper, it looks like a natural extension. Football is america’s biggest sport so liquidity is guaranteed but the framing is crucial. Robinhood doesn’t call… pic.twitter.com/fHOiJ52EnD

— Ignacio Palomera (@MrIPalomera) August 19, 2025

In response, Robinhood argues that it should receive the same legal protection as Kalshi. The company contends that the regulators in both states are disregarding the court’s decision by attempting to block its similar offerings. The legal battle now centers on whether Robinhood will be allowed to enter the sports event contract space or if state regulators will continue to impede its operations.

Regulatory Pushback and Business Impact

Robinhood’s lawsuits claim that the actions of Nevada and New Jersey regulators could harm its business and create an uneven playing field in the market. The company asserts that if state regulators are allowed to take action against it, while Kalshi is permitted to operate, Robinhood will lose out in the competitive sports event contract market. The company further argues that the ongoing threats from regulators are detrimental to its ability to serve its customers and compete fairly.

Robinhood’s legal filings emphasize the harm it faces by being prevented from offering the contracts, noting that the platform facilitates the placement and liquidation of these contracts, which ultimately settle on Kalshi. The company has requested court orders to prevent the regulators from taking enforcement actions against it, as well as temporary restraining orders to protect its business while the lawsuits proceed.

Broader Impact on Event Contracts and Prediction Markets

The dispute between Robinhood and the state regulators has broader implications for the future of event contracts and prediction markets. These markets, which allow users to speculate on the outcome of various events, have grown in popularity due to their potential for transparency and the use of blockchain technology.

Robinhood’s push to offer such contracts signals a growing interest in expanding the scope of these markets, particularly in the realm of sports betting.

The legal fight underscores the tension between state and federal jurisdictions over emerging financial products like event contracts. While state regulators seek to maintain control over gambling activities, federal courts have increasingly sided with platforms like Kalshi and Robinhood, which argue that their offerings are regulated by the CFTC and should not be subject to state gambling laws. This ongoing legal battle could set important precedents for the regulation of digital markets in the U.S. and shape the future of prediction markets and sports betting.