Lynnae is a journalist covering the intersection of technology, culture, and gambling. She has more than five years of experience as a writer and editor, with bylines at SlashGear and MakeUseOf. On the iGaming side,...
Read Full BioPolymarket has been pulled into the legal fight over sports event contracts for the first time. On January 16, the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) released a statement announcing that it had filed a civil enforcement action in the District Court for Carson City against Blockratize Inc., which does business as Polymarket. The news was first reported by sports betting and gaming lawyer Daniel Wallach on X.
The complaint seeks a declaration and injunction to block Polymarket from offering what the state characterizes as “unlicensed wagering in violation of Nevada law.”
Nevada’s action against Polymarket comes as the platform returns to the United States, nearly four years after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ordered it to block U.S. users. Polymarket is now part of the growing list of prediction market operators confronting state regulators over where financial “event contracts” end and sports betting begins.
Nevada Says Polymarket’s Event Contracts Cross Line
In its complaint, the NGCB argues that Polymarket’s sports-related contracts, which allow users to buy and sell positions on the outcomes of sporting events, fall under Nevada’s definition of wagering.
“Polymarket operates a derivatives exchange and prediction market where it offers event contracts for sale. These products are offered for sale on Polymarket’s mobile app and made available to people in Nevada. The Board considers offering sports event contracts, or certain other event contracts, to constitute wagering activity,” the NGCB said in the statement announcing the civil enforcement action.
Because Polymarket doesn’t hold a Nevada gaming license, the Board says its sports event contracts violate multiple sections of the state’s gaming law. In its filing, the Board points out that there are larger issues at play, noting, “Nevada’s public policy, as expressed by the Legislature, is that the gaming industry is vitally important to the economy of the state and the general welfare of the inhabitants and therefore must be licensed, controlled, and assisted to protect the public health, safety, morals, good order, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the State.”
The lawsuit is asking the court to stop Polymarket from continuing to offer these products to Nevada residents. For the NGCB, this fight isn’t just about one platform; it’s about maintaining control over a gaming market that has long been tightly regulated. Nevada’s position has been consistent: if a product looks like sports betting, the state believes it should be regulated as sports betting.
The same day it filed suit against Polymarket, the NGCB also issued broader guidance on online gaming products operating across jurisdictions. In that notice, the Board cautioned companies against assuming they were operating legally simply because the state has not yet taken enforcement action, writing, “the absence of any enforcement action against any gaming company in a specific Jurisdiction, does not in itself mean that Online Gaming Products may be legally offered in that Jurisdiction.”
Polymarket Joins a Growing List of Legal Targets
While this is the first lawsuit Polymarket has faced over sports event contracts, it’s far from the first time Nevada regulators have taken action against a prediction market.
Polymarket’s rival Kalshi has already spent months battling the state in court. Nevada previously issued a cease-and-desist order against Kalshi, arguing its sports contracts constituted illegal gambling. Although Kalshi initially scored a temporary legal win, securing a preliminary injunction blocking Nevada from enforcing its cease-and-desist order, a federal judge later allowed the state to move forward, a decision now under appeal.
Other companies, including Crypto.com and Robinhood, have also received cease-and-desist letters from Nevada regulators and responded with lawsuits of their own. The Nevada case shows that the state will continue to aggressively defend its authority over sports wagering, even as prediction markets gain traction in other parts of the U.S.
