Robinhood sues Missouri to block sports event-contract enforcement

Robinhood Derivatives has sued Missouri Attorney General Catherine L. Hanaway and six Missouri Gaming Commission officials, seeking to stop the state applying its gambling and sports-wagering laws to the company’s sports event contracts.

The complaint, filed Nov. 9 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, contains one claim under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. It asks for a declaration that Missouri’s laws are unconstitutional as applied to Robinhood’s event-contract business, as well as temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctions.

Robinhood says the Commodity Exchange Act pre-empts Missouri’s regime for event contracts traded on Commodity Futures Trading Commission-regulated designated contract markets. The company argues that federal pre-emption covers brokers facilitating customer trades as well as the exchanges executing them, and that Congress gave the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction to create a uniform national derivatives market.

The claims have not been adjudicated. Robinhood is registered with the CFTC as a futures commission merchant, rather than an exchange, and says it routes customers’ sports-contract orders to Kalshi, Rothera and Nadex. It began routing such contracts to Nadex on Sept. 8. Its complaint says Rothera is 90% owned by a joint venture formed by Robinhood Markets, the company’s parent.

The suit followed Hanaway’s Sept. 16 cease-and-desist letter, which described Robinhood as an online sports-wagering platform. The letter gave the company 30 days to halt its Missouri activity or obtain a state licence, pay applicable taxes and fees, and ensure that no Missouri resident under 21 could place a sports wager.

Robinhood responded on Oct. 16. On Nov. 6, Missouri Solicitor General Louis Capozzi III told the company that the attorney general intended to seek a judicial order compelling compliance with state law within at least three days, according to RG.org. Robinhood argues that it cannot secure a Missouri licence because it is neither an excursion gambling boat nor a professional sports team, while the state’s two stand-alone mobile licences went to DraftKings and Circa Sports.

Missouri maintains that facilitating the contracts amounts to unlicensed sports wagering. Its attorney general’s office says any sports-wagering operator must hold a Gaming Commission licence, pay taxes and fees, and stop under-21s from betting. The state’s sports-wagering framework, approved by voters through Amendment 2 in 2024 and launched Dec. 1, 2025, imposes a 10% tax on adjusted gross revenue. Initial and five-year licence renewals can each cost as much as $500,000.

The state also alleges Robinhood’s customer agreement permitted wagering by people aged 18 and older, whereas Missouri law bars sports wagering by those under 21. Missouri says the Commodity Exchange Act does not displace its law and that sports event contracts are not swaps under the federal statute.

The clash reflects an unresolved national legal question. The CFTC proposed in October to expressly include sports, political, cultural and weather event contracts within the definition of swaps, describing the proposal as a way to resolve ambiguity. The Council on Foreign Relations has noted that federal appeals courts are divided: the Third Circuit sided with Kalshi in a sports-contract dispute, while the Sixth and Ninth Circuits sided with states.

Four earlier federal cases in Missouri, brought by Kalshi, Novig, Nadex and Underdog, had already challenged threatened state enforcement. QCX, Polymarket’s U.S. exchange, filed a parallel lawsuit against Missouri officials on the same day, as we reported.

As of Nov. 9, the docket showed Robinhood’s complaint, a disclosure statement and three attorney appearances, but no separately filed motion for a temporary restraining order or response from the state.