Polymarket US sues Missouri over sports event-contract crackdown

QCX LLC, which does business as Polymarket US, filed a federal lawsuit against Missouri Attorney General Catherine L. Hanaway and state gaming officials on Nov. 9, seeking to block enforcement of Missouri sports-wagering law against its event contracts.

The complaint, QCX LLC v. Hanaway et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri as Case No. 4:26-cv-01930. It seeks declaratory judgments and preliminary and permanent injunctions, arguing on independent grounds that the Commodity Exchange Act pre-empts Missouri law and that the threatened enforcement violates the Commerce Clause.

QCX describes itself as a Delaware company headquartered in New York that operates a CFTC-regulated derivatives exchange and prediction market. Its platform allows users to buy, sell and exchange event contracts, financial products whose settlements depend on the outcome of an underlying event.

The defendants also include Missouri Gaming Commission officials Jan M. Zimmerman, Kevin M. Spaulding, Kevin Cantwell, Sam Gladney and Roger Stottlemyre, all sued in their official capacities. The complaint’s claims have not yet been tested by the court.

The dispute stems from a Sept. 16 cease-and-desist letter in which Hanaway’s office told Polymarket to stop offering sports wagering to Missouri residents or obtain a state licence, pay associated taxes and fees, and prevent those under 21 from participating. The company was given 30 days to confirm compliance or cessation, and says subsequent discussions with the attorney general’s office did not resolve the matter.

Missouri maintains that sports event contracts offered to its residents are unlicensed sports wagering, rather than swaps governed by federal commodities law. Hanaway said companies could not “repackage sports bets as ‘event contracts’ to avoid Missouri law,” and said the state would enforce rules approved by voters and protect consumers.

The attorney general’s office also alleged that Polymarket’s rulebook permitted participation by people 18 and older, while Missouri law bars sports wagering by those under 21. Missouri voters approved Amendment 2 in 2024, and the state’s regulated sports-betting market opened on Dec. 1, 2025. The regime includes a 10% tax on sports-betting gross receipts and licence and five-year renewal fees that can each reach $500,000.

QCX contends that the state’s licensing system is itself unconstitutional. The company says online licences are restricted to in-state excursion gambling boats, Missouri professional sports teams, or operators acting for them; that licensed operators must locate servers in Missouri; and that betting must be confined to people physically within the state.

Those requirements would prevent a licensee from serving the rest of the country, QCX argues. The complaint calls them “discriminatory, balkanizing measures” that serve “no apparent purpose beyond protectionism,” and says state enforcement would fragment a nationally regulated market, reduce liquidity and jeopardize banking and commercial relationships.

The filing also points to a Nov. 5 CFTC interpretation which, according to the complaint, generally prevents a designated contract market from denying access to an otherwise eligible U.S. participant solely because of their location. QCX argues that Congress gave the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over certain derivatives traded on designated contract markets when it amended the Commodity Exchange Act in 1974.

Event contracts have appeared on commission-regulated exchanges since at least 1992, according to the complaint. In 2024, the CFTC proposed rules addressing event contracts involving gaming and other activities potentially contrary to the public interest, while reporting a significant rise since 2021 in their number and variety on registered exchanges.

The Missouri action follows QCX’s Oct. 27 Louisiana lawsuit seeking to stop that state from applying its gambling laws to Polymarket US event contracts, as we reported.

QCX says Missouri’s threatened action exposes it to civil penalties, a forced halt to Missouri operations and wider consequences for its national business.