Nevada Court Issues Temporary Restraining Order Against Polymarket

A Nevada state judge has temporarily barred Polymarket, the onchain prediction platform operated by Blockratize, from taking bets with Nevada residents as a broader dispute over jurisdiction unfolds. In a 14-day temporary restraining order granted Thursday, the court blocked Polymarket from offering event-based contracts in the state while the underlying case proceeds. A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for February 11, setting the stage for a potential longer-term ruling on whether Polymarket’s offerings are unlicensed wagers under Nevada law or fall under federal commodity rules. The decision underscores the tension between state gaming statutes and arguments that the Commodity Exchange Act could preempt state gambling regulation. Critics and observers will be watching how the court frames the platform’s distinct model of onchain bets tied to real-world events.

At issue is whether Polymarket’s markets should be treated as gambling products subject to Nevada’s licensing regime or as financial instruments that could fall under federal oversight. The Nevada Gaming Control Board contends that, at least in its current form, the platform operates as unlicensed wagering rather than a regulated financial product marketplace. The temporary restraining order focuses on preventing ongoing activity that could compromise state safeguards around betting integrity, age verification, and responsible gaming standards while the matter is litigated. The court’s decision leverages Nevada’s gambling statutes to justify halting the platform’s operations in-state, a noteworthy stance given debates in other jurisdictions about preemption and regulatory reach.

As part of the ruling, the judge rejected Blockratize’s assertion that the U.S. Commodity Exchange Act affords exclusive jurisdiction to the CFTC over event contracts. Instead, the court indicated that Nevada may apply its own gaming laws, at least in the context of a TRO pending resolution on the merits. The decision aligns with a broader pattern of state regulators probing whether global prediction markets should be treated like gambling products or derivatives, a distinction with material consequences for licensing, consumer protections, and enforcement. Polymarket has not yet commented publicly in detail on the ruling, though its representatives have previously argued that the platform operates within federal market framework rather than state gambling codes.

The court’s injunction comes as the regulatory landscape for prediction markets tightens across the United States. In a closely watched companion case, Tennessee regulators ordered Kalshi, Polymarket and Crypto.com’s North American Derivatives Exchange to halt sports-related event contracts for state residents, void existing trades, and refund users. Officials cited gaps in consumer protections, including age verification and responsible-gaming controls, as central to their action. The Tennessee move mirrors a broader enforcement push that has roiled the industry as state authorities weigh how to balance consumer protection with innovation in financial and prediction markets. For readers tracking the space, the Tennessee action provides a useful datapoint on how state regulators view event contracts in relation to traditional sports wagering rules.

Kalshi, a CFTC-designated contract market, has spent roughly a year navigating numerous state and federal challenges over whether its products are permissible derivatives or illegal gambling. The outcomes have been mixed: courts in Connecticut and New Jersey granted temporary protections for Kalshi in some cases, while rulings in other states, including Nevada and Maryland, have been less favorable or have dissolved injunctions. The evolving landscape highlights how even platforms recognized by federal regulators as legitimate markets must contend with a patchwork of state gambling codes and enforcement priorities. The broader narrative surrounding Kalshi underscores the difficulty of achieving a universal regulatory classification for prediction markets in the United States.

Beyond state court actions, the sector has faced a high-stakes dispute over regulatory jurisdiction. In December, Coinbase filed suit against state regulators in Connecticut, Illinois, and Michigan, seeking a federal declaration that certain prediction markets listed on a CFTC-regulated venue fall under federal jurisdiction, not a mosaic of 50 state gambling codes. The suit reflects a strategy to clarify the boundary between federal derivatives rules and state gaming statutes, a line that has proven elusive in several jurisdictions. The mix of court wins and losses for Kalshi, the ongoing Nevada case against Polymarket, and parallel actions in Tennessee collectively illustrate a market under legal pressure as policymakers weigh how best to align innovation with consumer protection.

Nevada joins Tennessee in prediction market pushback

The current Nevada order sits within a broader pushback against prediction market operators that industry participants and regulators alike say straddles the line between gambling and financial markets. The Tennessee action, which targets Kalshi and other platforms, emphasizes consumer protections, verifications, and responsible gaming tools as essential safeguards before any expansion into state markets. The regulatory debate has intensified as more platforms seek to operate across state lines, prompting questions about preemption, licensing requirements, and the scope of federal oversight over event-based contracts.

In addition to the Nevada and Tennessee developments, industry observers are watching related regulatory moves—such as court decisions or administrative actions in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland—that have shaped Kalshi’s ability to operate in those states. The varied outcomes illustrate how jurisdictional nuance can alter the viability of prediction markets and influence strategic decisions by platform operators seeking a national footprint. For policymakers, the thread tying these cases together is the fundamental concern about consumer protections, market integrity, and the proper regulatory home for products that blend betting with blockchain technology.

As the regulatory pronouncements accumulate, a growing portion of the market is also paying attention to enforcement signals from other sectors, including traditional financial markets and digital asset platforms. The dynamic is shaping how operators design products, implement identity and age checks, and structure user agreements to withstand scrutiny from state regulators. While some jurisdictions have offered temporary relief or protections for certain platforms, others have demonstrated a readiness to restrict or pause in-state activity until a comprehensive legal framework emerges. The policy debate is far from settled, but one refrain is clear: prediction markets operate in a gray zone that current statutes were not precisely designed to cover, raising questions about innovation, consumer protection, and the balance of power between states and the federal government.

The unfolding Nevada case thus matters not only for Polymarket and Blockratize, but for the broader ecosystem seeking regulatory clarity. The outcome could influence where platforms choose to deploy their services, how they structure geofencing and licensing, and how regulators approach enforcement in the absence of a harmonized federal framework. For users, the stakes include potential refunds, the reliability of market data, and the availability of onchain prediction tools in jurisdictions with distinct gaming laws. For developers and investors, the case highlights the risk profile associated with cross-border product launches and the need for robust compliance programs that adapt to evolving regulatory priorities. The coming weeks will reveal whether the court’s preliminary view on unlicensed wagering holds, or if federal preemption arguments will reshape the trajectory of prediction markets in the United States.

Why it matters

The Nevada ruling crystallizes a key policy tension: how to regulate predictive products that resemble gambling in form but are structured as market instruments. If state gaming laws prevail, it may become harder for onchain prediction platforms to operate without explicit licenses in multiple jurisdictions, potentially limiting cross-state access and increasing compliance costs for operators. For users, the decision could affect the availability of in-state markets, the reliability of platform safeguards, and the likelihood of timely dispute resolution. For the market as a whole, the case adds to the ongoing discourse about whether prediction markets should fall under derivatives legislation, gambling codes, or a hybrid regime that combines elements of both.

From a builders’ perspective, the Nevada outcome signals the importance of clear licensing pathways and interoperable compliance architectures. It also underscores the need for transparent governance structures, robust KYC/AML controls, and rigorous age-verification mechanisms to protect vulnerable users and maintain market integrity. For policymakers, the judges’ framing of gambling statutes in relation to onchain event contracts offers a concrete data point for evaluating whether existing state frameworks adequately cover new forms of digital betting, or if a broader federal standard is warranted. The case will likely spur further discussions about regulatory harmonization, potential preemption, and the appropriate balance between innovation and consumer protection in the burgeoning world of decentralized prediction markets.

What to watch next

• The preliminary injunction hearing in Nevada is scheduled for February 11; outcomes could shape how quickly any in-state activity resumes or remains restricted.
• New filings or appeals from Polymarket or the Nevada Gaming Control Board may clarify the legal basis for distinguishing wagering from financial instruments in state courts.
• Watch for updates from Kalshi as jurisdictions continue to test whether its products are permissible derivatives or prohibited gambling; results in Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, and others will inform broader implications.
• The Tennessee order against Kalshi, Polymarket, and Crypto.com’s NADEX may set another regulatory benchmark for state-level intervention in prediction markets tied to sports outcomes.
• Regulatory actions or court rulings in Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, and other states involved in Coinbase’s suit may provide additional context on how federal and state authorities intend to coordinate or contest jurisdiction over prediction-market activities.

Sources & verification

• Nevada court order granting a 14-day TRO against Polymarket (Blockratize) and scheduling for a February 11 preliminary injunction hearing.
• The Tennessee Sports Wagering Council decision to halt state-resident sports event contracts on Kalshi, Polymarket, and Crypto.com’s NADEX, including voids and refunds.
• Kalshi regulatory trajectory across Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, and other states as reported in contemporaneous coverage.
• Coinbase’s December lawsuit challenging regulators in Connecticut, Illinois, and Michigan over the classification of prediction markets on a CFTC-regulated venue.

Nevada court halts Polymarket operations pending case

A Nevada state court has stepped into a high-profile dispute over how onchain prediction markets should be regulated within the state. The 14-day TRO granted against Polymarket, operated by Blockratize, freezes in-state activity while the merits of the case are litigated. The judge’s ruling rests on Nevada’s gambling statutes, which the court currently interprets as applying to sports and other event-based markets run by Polymarket for residents of the state. This provisional order underscores the propensity of state regulators to treat these platforms as wagering operators unless they can be shown to operate under applicable financial market exemptions. With the preliminary injunction hearing set for February 11, stakeholders are watching closely to see whether the court will extend the order or allow the platform to resume limited activity under certain conditions.

The decision also rejects the assertion that the federal Commodity Exchange Act grants exclusive regulatory authority to the CFTC over such contracts. By confirming that Nevada can apply its own gaming law, the court keeps open the possibility that state-level licensing and compliance requirements will govern Polymarket’s activities in Nevada, at least in this transitional phase. The legal argument at stake—whether federal preemption can shield a state-licensed gambling framework from local rules—has implications for other states evaluating similar bets on real-world events. In practice, this means market operators may need to tailor their product designs to align with state licensing regimes or face legal jeopardy in jurisdictions that consider their markets as unlicensed wagers.

As the case unfolds, observers will note the broader regulatory currents at play. The Nevada TRO reflects a cautious approach by regulators who want more time to scrutinize consumer protections, identity verification, and responsible gaming measures before allowing prediction markets to operate freely within state borders. The court’s analysis does not establish a final interpretation of preemption or licensing; rather, it preserves the status quo in Nevada while the litigation runs its course. The interplay between state statutes and federal authorities is likely to continue to shape how prediction markets are marketed, accessed, and policed in the United States. The outcome could influence whether other states adopt a similar posture, delay market activity, or seek to craft new licensing pathways for platforms offering event-based contracts.

This article was originally published as Nevada Court Issues Temporary Restraining Order Against Polymarket on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.