Missouri's Deadline Passes: Two Exchanges Sue, Four Hold Off

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway sent cease-and-desist letters on September 16 and 17, 2026 to six prediction-market operators: Kalshi, Polymarket, Crypto.com, Novig, Underdog and Robinhood. Each had 30 days to stop offering sports event contracts to Missouri residents or obtain a license from the Missouri Gaming Commission.

A license would also bring the state's 10% wagering tax. The attorney general said the operators' fee-based structure does not change the classification of the activity as unlicensed sports wagering under Missouri law.

On Friday, October 16, the day before the deadline, two of the six went to federal court. Novig, through its exchange operator Ludlow Exchange LLC, sued in the Eastern District of Missouri (No. 4:26-cv-01780). North American Derivatives Exchange, Crypto.com's CFTC-registered exchange, sued in the Western District of Missouri (No. 4:26-cv-00969).

Both complaints rest on the same premise as earlier operator suits in other states. They argue the contracts are swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act, that the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction, and that Missouri gambling law is preempted.

The Crypto.com exchange's complaint says the attorney general's letter was incorrectly addressed to Foris DAX, Inc. rather than the exchange. It also says a license is not a realistic option, because the Missouri constitution allows only two direct mobile sports wagering licenses and, according to the complaint, both have been awarded.

Voters approved legal sports wagering in November 2024, and the Missouri Gaming Commission oversees it. The attorney general's letter to Crypto.com separately noted that the platform lets users as young as 18 trade, while Missouri's minimum sports betting age is 21. These are the plaintiffs' and the attorney general's allegations, not findings.

Novig seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction. According to The Block's reporting, it argues the court should preserve the status quo while the Eighth Circuit hears a related Kalshi appeal arising from Iowa.

That framing is a practical one. Missouri sits in the Eighth Circuit, so a ruling there would bind both Missouri district courts, and the plaintiffs are asking not to be forced out of the state before it arrives.

As of Sunday, October 18, Kalshi, Polymarket, Robinhood and Underdog had not filed suit in either Missouri federal district, per The Block's review of court records. Kalshi was the first of the six to respond to the attorney general, and Spectrum News reported on October 2 that her office described "ongoing discussions" with it.

Underdog sued Connecticut over a similar crackdown last month but had not sued Missouri. The reasons the four held off were not reported, and no settlement terms had been disclosed.

The Sixth and Ninth Circuits have ruled against Kalshi on preemption, while the Third Circuit sided with it. A petition in Flaherty v. KalshiEX is before the Supreme Court as No. 26-299.

For operators and compliance teams, Missouri is a live test of two postures. One is to litigate immediately and seek an injunction. The other is to negotiate with the state while the appellate picture develops.

The first signals will be whether either court sets an expedited schedule on the injunction requests and whether the attorney general files her own enforcement action against the operators that did not sue. She has said she expects a federal-preemption defense and, absent a settlement, intends to sue.

Any announcement from Kalshi, Polymarket, Robinhood or Underdog about Missouri availability would also show how the four are resolving the question.