Regulator news

Federal judge denies Novig's bid to block New York gambling laws, ruling its sports contracts are not swaps

A federal judge in Manhattan denied a preliminary injunction to Ludlow Exchange, LLC, which does business as Novig, on November 10, 2026. In a 35-page opinion and order, the court held that Novig's sports event contracts are not "swaps" under the Commodity Exchange Act, so New York can require Novig to get a state gambling license or stop listing them.

Entrance of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street in Manhattan, New York.
Photo: Ken Lund / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 2.0

Overview

  • Ruling: Opinion and Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 73, filed November 10, 2026, in Ludlow Exchange, LLC v. James, No. 26-cv-6676 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.).
  • Holding: the contracts depend on an "event or contingency," but not one "associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence," so they are not swaps.
  • CFTC: the court gave no deference to the agency and called its October 19 interim final rule and proposed rule "inherently contradictory."
  • Alternative holding: even if the contracts were swaps, the court found no express, field or conflict preemption of New York's laws.
  • Background: Novig sued on August 5, 2026; the court denied a temporary restraining order on August 11 (ECF No. 38).

Novig has lost its first bid to stop New York from applying its gambling laws to its sports event contracts.

In an opinion and order filed November 10, 2026, Judge McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the preliminary injunction Novig sought on August 6. The CFTC designated Novig as a contract market on June 16, 2026.

The court agreed with the Third and Sixth Circuits that the contracts depend on an "event or contingency." It held that the events are not "associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence," because bettors "are not hedging." The opinion says Novig offered "only hypotheticals" of business hedging and markets to "ordinary people who want to bet on sports games."

The court said it "need not defer" to the CFTC, and that the agency's change of position "appears calculated to influence the outcome of the ongoing litigation." In the alternative, it found no preemption even if the contracts were swaps. It described a CFTC order to Kalshi as one that "smacks of a collusive effort," and said Novig could get a New York license, as it once held one in Colorado, and use geofencing. As an example, the opinion cites a four-game NFL parlay on Novig with a 111.11x payout.

The judge did not reach the other injunction factors. AskSpinner tracks related cases on its prediction-market litigation tracker. Novig is also in court against Missouri.

Cite This Article

Topics In This Story

Related Countries

Browse sports betting games

Daniel Tan

Daniel Tan

Daniel Tan is an editor at AskSpinner News who believes industry writing can be informed, approachable and engaging. Daniel turns complex subjects into accessible articles and reports, giving readers a welcoming way into unfamiliar topics and room to build their understanding as they read. AskSpinner News desk standards, corrections policy and contact: AskSpinner News desk (https://askspinner.com/news/askspinner-news-desk).

More From This Author