Crypto.com’s prediction market platform, OG, has initiated a federal lawsuit against the State of Washington. This legal action comes just days after a judge in Washington granted a preliminary injunction against Kalshi, another prediction market operator.
OG aims to prevent the state from enforcing actions that could harm its federally regulated exchange. The company asserts that the recent court ruling and various public statements from regulators signify a looming threat of similar claims being directed at them.
The lawsuit was filed on July 22, shortly after the ruling against Kalshi, which indicated that Washington was likely to prevail in its assertion that Kalshi’s event contracts breach state gambling laws. The judge also dismissed Kalshi's arguments regarding federal preemption.
In its complaint, OG references a December 2025 guidance from Washington that labeled prediction markets as “unauthorized,” alongside public statements that categorize the platform as illegal gambling. The state has also participated in multi-state briefs advocating for its authority to regulate prediction markets, which OG claims creates a “concrete and imminent threat” of similar enforcement actions against them.
The lawsuit reiterates the argument that the Commodity Exchange Act grants the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) exclusive jurisdiction over federally regulated prediction markets. However, it places significant emphasis on the CFTC’s recent actions in Michigan, particularly a July 14 emergency order that instructed Kalshi to honor trades involving Michigan customers, following a state court ruling that required those positions to be unwound.
OG contends that this order illustrates how state-level enforcement can conflict with the federal regulatory framework governing designated contract markets. The company argues that the CFTC has recognized that forcing exchanges to unwind trades or limit participants based on state actions could distort market operations, contradicting federal mandates for fair market access and orderly trading.
Additionally, the lawsuit highlights the legitimate commercial applications of sports event contracts. OG argues that these contracts serve as financial instruments that businesses can utilize to mitigate commercial risks. The complaint lists various businesses that could benefit from such contracts, including broadcasters reliant on viewership for advertising revenue, retailers selling team merchandise, hotels and travel companies experiencing demand surges during major sporting events, and restaurants and bars near stadiums.
OG emphasizes that many businesses across different sectors face significant financial risks related to sporting events and may seek to manage these risks through event contracts. The company is requesting the federal court to declare Washington’s enforcement efforts unconstitutional.