“Las Vegas* — Nevada regulators scored another legal victory against prediction markets on Thursday, when a state court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Polymarket, barring the platform from offering Super Bowl-related contracts to users in the state ahead of Sunday’s game.

The order, issued by Judge Jason Woodbury of Nevada’s First Judicial District Court, will remain in effect for two weeks while the court considers whether to impose a preliminary injunction. The Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) filed suit on 16 January against Polymarket’s US affiliate, which operates a scaled-back version of the company’s international prediction market product. Polymarket may appeal the TRO, and a hearing on the merits of a potential injunction is scheduled for 11 February.

In response, Polymarket suspended access for Nevada users, a move that could carry legal significance as courts across the US continue to weigh the effectiveness of geofencing and partial access restrictions in determining compliance with state gambling laws.

“Polymarket is challenging this temporary order in court,” the company said in a message posted to its platform. “We’re committed to seeing this through and to reopening as soon as we’re allowed to do so.”

The NGCB declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation.

Momentum shifts after early court win

Nevada’s broader legal campaign against prediction markets has evolved significantly over the past year. In March 2024, the NGCB became the first state regulator to issue a cease-and-desist order to a prediction market operator when it took action against Kalshi. Kalshi responded by suing the regulator and initially prevailed, securing a preliminary injunction that was widely viewed as an early breakthrough for the industry at the state level.

That momentum followed Kalshi’s earlier success in federal court against the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) over election-related contracts. The CFTC ultimately dropped its appeal in that case, leaving state regulators as the primary legal challengers. More recently, the federal agency has signalled an interest in re-engaging on prediction markets, this time potentially in support of the platforms.

However, Kalshi’s legal standing in Nevada weakened late last year. In November, US District Judge Andrew Gordon dissolved the preliminary injunction he had previously granted, citing further analysis of whether sports-related contracts qualify as financial “swaps” under federal law. At the same time, Gordon denied a similar injunction request from Robinhood, another prediction market operator.

Polymarket, which had not yet begun re-entering the US market during the earlier Kalshi proceedings, now appears to be facing a less favourable judicial climate. In issuing the TRO, Judge Woodbury described Gordon’s reasoning as “persuasive,” applying it to Polymarket’s limited US offering rather than its broader international platform.

There are no requirements for responsible gambling, they don’t pay any state income tax. So it looks a lot like gambling, and we’ll see.

Legal status unresolved, future still possible

Nevada’s actions are being closely watched given its role as the most prominent gambling jurisdiction in the US. Prediction markets are also facing legal challenges in other states, including New Jersey, but outcomes in Nevada could set influential precedents.

The Nevada Resort Association (NRA), which represents the state’s casino industry, was approved as an intervener in the Kalshi litigation. The association has consistently argued that prediction markets pose an existential threat to the regulated gaming industry, citing the absence of responsible gambling requirements and state tax contributions.

“There are no requirements for responsible gambling, they don’t pay any state income tax,” Virginia Valentine, president and CEO of the NRA, told *iGB* last year. “So it looks a lot like gambling, and we’ll see.”

Despite the current legal setbacks for prediction market operators, state regulators have stopped short of ruling out the concept entirely. NGCB Chairman Mike Dreitzer has acknowledged that while prediction markets do not presently comply with Nevada law, the underlying technology could eventually be accommodated within the state’s regulatory framework.

“I think you can absolutely take these new technologies, and if you do it right, you can absolutely fit them within the appropriate regulatory structure of Nevada and other states,” Dreitzer told *iGB* last month.

For now, however, Nevada courts appear increasingly receptive to the state’s arguments, marking a shift from last spring’s early victories for prediction market operators and leaving the industry on the defensive as litigation continues.