Nevada gaming chair disputes CFTC distinction between sports contracts and betting
Dreitzer’s comments dispute the distinction used to separate sports-event contracts from conventional betting.
Decisions and developments involving NGCB. Open in the feed
Add it to your personal digest. Manage your digest
Kalshi, DraftKings, FanDuel, MGM Resorts, Caesars Entertainment, GeoComply
Regulatory decisions and related reporting.
Reported licences, deals, appointments and other connections. Follow the entry links for context.
Newest first, grouped by month.
Dreitzer’s comments dispute the distinction used to separate sports-event contracts from conventional betting.
The dispute could affect whether prediction market operators face state gambling laws alongside federal oversight.
Proposed Nevada technical revisions cover multiple gaming systems, putting associated equipment requirements under review.
The comments raise licensing and tribal-law questions for prediction-market operators and tribes considering agreements with them.
Nevada has no fallback plan if the Supreme Court sides with prediction market operators, leaving its stance uncertain.
The NGCB schedule sets recurring machine taxes, quarterly licence fees and monthly revenue fee bands for nonrestricted licensees.
Nevada operators and equipment suppliers have until 15 November to comment on proposed technical standards for gaming equipment and systems.
Nevada licensees would need to change the resources promoted in problem gambling materials if the commission approves the amendment.
Nevada’s proposed regulatory amendment would remove references to the National Council on Problem Gambling.
The proposed standards would consolidate technical guidance for gaming equipment and systems in Nevada.
Opposition from regulators and gaming executives highlights prediction market concerns alongside industry discussion of compliance, oversight and risk.
Nevada licensing risks and regulatory warnings are keeping Caesars and MGM out of prediction markets.
The statewide increase gives operators and investors a measure of Nevada's gaming revenue performance in August.
Roberts’ indictment concerns allegedly continued wagering after arrest, including bets from an undercover investigator, highlighting the case for regulators.
The indictment advances an alleged illegal bookmaking case investigated for several years by NGCB and the FBI.
The ruling backs Nevada’s action against Kalshi’s sports contracts after Kalshi failed to demonstrate likely federal pre-emption.
The Ninth Circuit upheld Nevada’s enforcement against Kalshi, rejecting federal financial regulation as protection from state gambling laws.
Nevada can enforce gambling laws against Kalshi’s sports event contracts following rejection of its federal pre-emption argument.
Nevada’s casino revenue increased statewide, with the Las Vegas Strip recording faster percentage growth.
Kalshi faces a requested daily fine over alleged failure to geofence certain event contracts in Nevada.
Kalshi faces requested $120,000 daily fines over disputed compliance with a deadline to block specified bets in Nevada.
The offer provides Brazilian regulators access to Nevada’s licensing and supervisory experience.
Statewide gaming revenue increased despite lower revenue on the Strip.
The agreement requires Kalshi to end Nevada activity following problems implementing the court order.
Kalshi must implement geofencing to avoid the daily penalty.
The agreement requires Kalshi to restrict Nevada access to its sports contracts.
The geofencing agreement addresses alleged noncompliance with Nevada’s court restrictions.
The agreement imposes a deadline and financial consequences for incomplete Nevada blocking.
Kalshi faces daily penalties if it misses the agreed Nevada withdrawal deadline.
Kalshi faces daily penalties if it misses the agreed deadline to stop Nevada wagering.
The agreement requires Kalshi to strengthen Nevada access restrictions through an external location provider.
The memorandum establishes a basis for cooperation between the two gambling regulators.
The case concerns alleged misuse of advance player information in college basketball betting.
The case concerns alleged coordinated conduct linked to college proposition betting.
Select a connection to read its reporting, then follow the next entity.