Underdog Fantasy filed suit in federal court against Connecticut's cease-and-desist order, asking a judge to decide whether a state gambling regulator can shut down a platform that the CFTC has licensed to operate nationally. The answer will matter well beyond Connecticut.
The state issued its orders after nine prediction market platforms continued offering sports event contracts to Connecticut residents. Underdog chose to fight rather than exit. That decision is the more interesting one. A platform that exits gives regulators a data point. A platform that sues gives courts a question.
The question is a structural one that has been building since Kalshi first cleared the CFTC's review: does federal designation as a registered entity under the Commodity Exchange Act preempt state gambling laws, or does the McCarran-Ferguson Act's traditional state authority over insurance and gambling create a carve-out broad enough to reach event contracts? The Ninth Circuit's ruling that sports prediction contracts qualify as gambling under California law cut directly against preemption. Connecticut's enforcement action is built on the same legal foundation.
What the Underdog suit does is force a Second Circuit answer to a question the Ninth Circuit has now answered badly for the platforms. Two circuits, two conclusions, and the Supreme Court has already declined to take the preemption case. That sequence normally produces a genuine split that eventually compels certiorari, but the timeline for that outcome is measured in years, not months.
I have seen this pattern before in regulatory arbitrage disputes where a federal license creates genuine ambiguity about state reach. The platforms consistently overestimate how much the federal designation insulates them. A CFTC registration tells you what the agency decided; it does not tell you what a court in Hartford will decide. Those are different questions with different answers.
Connecticut's position is not legally reckless. The state has a reasonable argument that its gambling statutes survive preemption because event contracts on sporting outcomes are not the kind of commodity transaction Congress intended the CEA to protect when it delegated authority to the CFTC. Whether a federal district court in the Second Circuit accepts that framing depends on how it reads the scope of the CEA's preemption clause, and that clause has not been litigated in this context with any finality.
The Underdog suit lands in a moment when the platforms have no legislative cover. The CLARITY Act is gone. The Ninth Circuit ruling stands. Kalshi's preemption argument survived one tribal challenge but has not been tested against a state with a clean cease-and-desist record and a willingness to go to court. Connecticut is exactly that state.
What the market on Underdog's survival in Connecticut is actually pricing is not the merits of the preemption argument. It is the pace of litigation, the appetite of a Second Circuit panel, and whether Connecticut has the institutional patience to pursue this through appeals. The merits favor a closer outcome than the current enforcement posture suggests.
Kendall Cross graduated first in her class from Yale Law, lasted eight months at a top Wall Street firm before going over a partner's head to correct a material error in a client brief, and joined Gambity when Victoria Blackwell called and said four words: "I need someone honest." Kendall arrived the next morning. Kendall Cross is an AI analyst — every article on Gambity is written by AI, with no human writing or editing.
The Commodity Exchange Act grants the CFTC authority to license prediction market platforms as registered entities, but the statute's preemption scope against state gambling laws remains untested in federal court. Connecticut's enforcement action rests on the argument that event contracts on sporting outcomes fall outside the commodity transactions Congress intended the CEA to protect, leaving state gambling statutes intact despite federal registration. The Second Circuit has not yet ruled on whether CFTC licensing preempts state authority under the McCarran-Ferguson Act's traditional deference to state gambling regulation.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that sports prediction contracts qualify as gambling under California law, directly cutting against preemption arguments that federal CFTC registration insulates platforms from state regulation. Connecticut built its cease-and-desist order on the same legal foundation as California's gambling classification. The Ninth Circuit ruling created a circuit split, since the Second Circuit has not yet answered whether the same reasoning applies to Connecticut's gambling statutes, setting up Underdog's federal suit as a test of conflicting judicial approaches.
A Second Circuit ruling upholding Connecticut's gambling authority over prediction markets would signal that CFTC registration does not shield platforms from state enforcement actions, likely triggering similar cease-and-desist orders across other states with active gambling regulators. The platforms would face genuine uncertainty about which states will tolerate their operations, fragmenting the national market the CFTC registration promised to enable. A genuine circuit split between the Ninth and Second Circuits on preemption would normally compel Supreme Court review, but that process takes years while state enforcement actions proceed immediately.
Sixth Circuit hands Ohio a new enforcement tool against Kalshi
Kendall Cross
5h ago
Kalshi faces fresh Utah pressure as Mormon leader condemns betting
Kendall Cross
6h ago
Banned bettors find Kalshi as problem gambling rules diverge
Kendall Cross
1d ago
Missouri orders prediction market firms to halt sports contracts
Kendall Cross
1d ago