Coinbase Sued by Nevada for Unlicensed Sports Betting Allegations
- Coinbase sued by Nevada for unlicensed sports betting allegations.
- Court denies emergency restraining order against Coinbase.
- Potential jurisdiction conflict between state and federal regulation.
Nevada’s Gaming Control Board filed a lawsuit against Coinbase on February 2, 2026, in Nevada, accusing it of operating an unlicensed sports betting service through prediction market event contracts.
The lawsuit highlights regulatory tensions between state and federal authorities, as Coinbase challenges Nevada’s claims, potentially influencing the legal framework for prediction markets nationwide.
Nevada’s Gaming Control Board has filed a lawsuit against Coinbase, accusing the company’s prediction markets of constituting unlicensed sports betting. You can access the Complaint against Coinbase from the Nevada Gaming Control Board. The court denied an emergency restraining order and scheduled a hearing for further proceedings.
Coinbase Financial Markets, in partnership with Kalshi, offers prediction markets across the U.S. following its acquisition of The Clearing Company in December 2025. Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal stated that federal laws give the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over related contracts.
The lawsuit has sparked discussions on potential clashes between state and federal authorities over regulatory jurisdiction. Mike Dreitzer, Chair, Nevada Gaming Control Board, stated, “The Board takes seriously its responsibility to maintain a sound gaming industry and protect Nevada residents,” adding that “this action reaffirms that duty.” While Nevada aims to maintain its gaming industry, Coinbase argues that Congress prohibits such state-level overreach.
If Nevada’s suit succeeds, Coinbase could face substantial financial penalties and be forced to forfeit profits. The case underscores a growing tension between state and federal regulatory bodies in the prediction market landscape.
The lawsuit has broader implications for Coinbase’s operations and potentially sets a precedent for similar actions against other companies engaged in prediction markets. The outcome could influence future technological and regulatory directions in the sector.
The confrontation aligns with historical trends where state agencies challenge the extent of federal authority. Notably, the case is reminiscent of past enforcement actions by the Nevada Gaming Control Board against similar platforms like Polymarket.
