Crypto.com has retracted its sports event agreements in at least nine U.S. states, in response to various state-specific regulatory actions, cease-and-desist orders, and ongoing investigations regarding sports outcome prediction markets.
A representative from the company disclosed to multiple outlets that Crypto.com does not offer sports markets in Arizona, Michigan, Maryland, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, Nevada, and Ohio, and is completely inactive in New York. In Arizona, Crypto.com discontinued its sports event contracts on December 2 and eliminated its remaining prediction market offerings by December 12.
Each of these states has raised concerns regarding the legality of sports prediction markets, often classifying them as unlicensed illegal sports betting operations. Many states have either issued cease-and-desist orders or are currently embroiled in lawsuits against prediction market operators.
Regulatory and Legal Challenges
Nevada denied Crypto.com a preliminary injunction against the Nevada Gaming Control Board in October, after which the company confirmed it halted its sports contracts in that state. Cease-and-desist orders were also issued in Arizona and Illinois during the spring. Michigan has not formally initiated enforcement actions but has cautioned licensed operators against engaging with or facilitating sports event contracts, alongside announcing an investigation in April.
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, and Ohio are involved in legal battles with prediction market companies following cease-and-desist orders. Connecticut has also issued cease-and-desist notices to Crypto.com, Robinhood, and Kalshi, although Crypto.com continues to provide sports event contracts in Connecticut.
In states where Crypto.com is still operational, officials have issued warnings or opinions without directly naming the involved parties. For instance, Arkansas’ attorney general issued a formal opinion in October deeming sports prediction markets illegal without an official wagering license, while the Louisiana Gaming Control Board informed licensed sportsbooks that offering sports event contracts could jeopardize their licenses.
Enforcement Actions in Arizona
In Arizona, the state’s actions affected licensed partners as well. The Arizona Department of Gaming issued a notice on December 5 to revoke Underdog’s fantasy sports contest operator license due to its partnership with Crypto.com in prediction markets.
“The Department was informed that Crypto.com stopped offering sports contracts and prediction market services in Arizona following enforcement actions taken by the Department within its regulatory framework,” a spokesperson for the Arizona Department of Gaming told Sports Betting Dime.
The spokesperson confirmed that Underdog remains authorized to conduct daily fantasy sports contests while the administrative process unfolds. “The notice of intent is subject to an administrative appeal, and no final decision has yet been reached, allowing the licensee to operate while the process continues,” the spokesperson explained.
In the December 5 notice, Arizona officials noted that “any relationship between the licensee and a person or entity offering, enabling, or selling event contracts in Arizona” would be considered in evaluating suitability. Clifford Holden, assistant director for certification and licensing, stated, “ADG has investigated this case and determined that Crypto continues to operate unlawfully in Arizona.”
Underdog has provided Underdog Markets across several states since summer through its collaboration with Crypto.com, although the product was never launched in Arizona. As of December 16, Underdog’s predictions product is active in 23 states, including Washington, D.C. Fanatics Betting and Gaming collaborates with Crypto.com via Fanatics Markets, which is available in 24 states, excluding those where Crypto.com has ceased operations.
Crypto.com’s state-specific withdrawal contrasts with Kalshi, another member of the Coalition for Prediction Markets. In legal documents, Kalshi has stated it cannot restrict access by state and has cited annual costs of tens of millions of dollars, alongside concerns related to Commodity Futures Trading Commission access regulations.