A court has banned Polymarket from operating in Nevada during the Super Bowl following action by a regulatory body.

The Nevada Gaming Control Board has obtained a court order that temporarily prohibits Polymarket from offering its "event contracts" in the state. The decision was issued this Monday (February 2nd), just days before Super Bowl LX, preventing the prediction platform from providing options related to the sporting event to Nevada residents.

The legal action began on January 15, when the state regulatory body sued Polymarket, arguing that the company's services operate as gambling and therefore require proper licensing for legal operation in the state. The civil complaint filed by the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) on January 16 marks the first major enforcement action in the U.S. against Polymarket.

Court decision based on gaming legislation.

Judge Jason Woodbury, who presided over the case, agreed with the Gaming Control Board's position, finding that Polymarket's activities likely violate Nevada's current gambling laws, a state known for its strict control over betting.

In his ruling, the judge stated that the Commodity Exchange Act “does not confer exclusive jurisdiction over Polymarket’s contracts with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.” Woodbury also agreed with regulators that the company’s operations pose a risk to the state’s controlled betting environment.

Judge Woodbury highlighted that each day Polymarket operates “means more potential harm” to the NGCB and described the possible damages to the body as “irreparable and non-compensable.” He also emphasized the NGCB’s “statutory duty to protect the public” and oversee a gaming industry built on integrity, noting that an unlicensed operator like Polymarket undermines its ability to monitor betting, ensure compliance, and perform its regulatory functions.

The ban covers the Super Bowl period.

The court order is in effect for two weeks, a period that includes the Super Bowl LX. During this time, the platform is prohibited from offering any type of contract related to the event to Nevada residents. The company has stated that it will contest the order and, in the meantime, has withdrawn from the state.

It's worth noting that Polymarket's presence in Nevada has been limited, as the company only recently began re-entering the American market after its exit in 2022. Currently, the platform is in beta and, significantly, is not offering contracts related to the Super Bowl.

Next steps in the process

Polymarket indicated that it will file a detailed opposition by today, February 2nd. The process will then proceed to a preliminary hearing scheduled for February 11th, when further developments in the case may occur. This hearing will determine whether the temporary restraining order will be converted into a more lasting injunction, potentially clarifying the extent to which states can regulate prediction markets, despite the CFTC's claim of exclusive jurisdiction over derivatives.

Similar actions in other states

Nevada is not the only US state to take action against Polymarket. Massachusetts, Tennessee, Connecticut, Arizona, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Montana, and Ohio have also reached similar conclusions, determining that the sporting event contracts offered by the platform are equivalent to sports betting.

The temporary restraining order fits into a broader crackdown by the NGCB against prediction market platforms. In November, a court allowed the regulator to enforce a cease and desist order against Kalshi, a dispute that is now on appeal before the Ninth Circuit. That same month, Robinhood agreed to stop operating prediction markets in the state during any ongoing appeal proceedings.

Meanwhile, the CFTC is signaling a more permissive approach to event-based contracts. Newly appointed CFTC chairman Michael Selig stated on January 29 that event contracts have operated under CFTC oversight for more than two decades. He added that the agency will withdraw a 2014 proposal to ban markets related to sports and politics, along with a 2025 technical opinion that warned companies against offering sports contracts, stating that both actions contributed to regulatory uncertainty.