Nevada Gaming Control Board: The prediction market “gig is up”

Summary

At the Nevada Gaming Control Board meeting, member George Assad declared that prediction-market operators such as Kalshi, Crypto.com and Polymarket are on the back foot in their attempts to avoid state gambling regulation. Assad cited U.S. District Judge Andrew Gordon’s recent ruling denying Crypto.com’s request for a preliminary injunction — a decision finding that the sports-event contracts offered by prediction markets do not qualify as regulated financial instruments under the Commodity Futures Trading Act. That contrasts with an earlier April ruling in which Judge Gordon stopped Nevada from enforcing its sports-wagering laws against Kalshi.

The topic also saw a similar setback for Kalshi in Maryland, where a federal judge denied its preliminary injunction, reinforcing the view that states retain authority over gambling regulation. Assad argued forcefully that these contracts are effectively sports wagers subject to state gaming oversight and suggested regulators should seek recovery of revenues. MGM Resorts’ CEO Bill Hornbuckle later praised Assad’s comments during a licensing hearing.

Key Points

Judge Andrew Gordon denied Crypto.com’s bid for a preliminary injunction, finding prediction-market contracts aren’t protected as financial derivatives under the Commodity Futures Trading Act.
This ruling departs from an April decision that temporarily shielded Kalshi from Nevada enforcement, highlighting an inconsistent legal picture.
A Maryland federal judge also denied Kalshi’s injunction request, signalling support for state regulatory authority over these markets.
Nevada board member George Assad bluntly characterised prediction contracts as sports wagers and urged enforcement and possible recovery of taxes or revenues.
The decisions could have broad consequences for operators like Kalshi, Crypto.com and Polymarket and for how US states regulate or challenge prediction markets.

Author style

Punchy. This is more than courtroom theatre — it’s a potential turning point for how prediction markets are treated by regulators. If you work in gaming, payments, compliance or legal, this is worth your attention.

Why should I read this?

Short and sharp: regulators are pushing back and judges are starting to side with states. If you follow gambling law, prediction markets, or industry revenues, this update saves you a pile of reading — and tells you who might win the next round.