Nevada court issues temporary restraining order against Polymarket operations

• Carson City District Court grants two-week temporary restraining order against Polymarket following Gaming Control Board civil action.
• Blockratize Inc. and affiliated entities accused of violating Nevada gaming laws by offering unlicensed wagering on sports and event contracts.
• The court hearing scheduled for February 11, 2026, to consider preliminary injunction against the prediction market platform.

Polymarket has been temporarily barred from operating in Nevada after a district court granted a temporary restraining order following a civil enforcement action filed by the state’s Gaming Control Board.

Judge Jason Woodbury of Carson City District Court issued the temporary restraining order on Saturday, January 31, 2026, against Blockratize Inc., QCX LLC doing business as Polymarket US, and Adventure One QSS Inc., all operating under the Polymarket brand.

The order follows a civil complaint filed by the Nevada Gaming Control Board on January 16, 2026.

Court action cites multiple gaming law violations

The Gaming Control Board’s enforcement action alleges that Polymarket violated multiple Nevada statutes by operating an unlicensed wagering platform within state borders. The complaint cites violations of NRS 463.160, 463.350, 465.086, and 465.092 related to offering wagering on sports and event contracts through its mobile application.

Nevada regulators argue that the event contracts offered by Polymarket constitute wagering under state law. This directly contradicts the platform’s position that its offerings qualify as derivatives regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and exempt from state gaming oversight.

The court-issued temporary restraining order will remain in place for two weeks pending a hearing scheduled for February 11, 2026. At that hearing, Judge Woodbury will consider whether to issue a preliminary injunction that could extend restrictions on Polymarket’s Nevada operations.

Irreparable harm concerns drive emergency action

The Gaming Control Board’s filing emphasised potential irreparable harm to Nevada residents and the integrity of gaming operations. Regulators highlighted concerns about consumer protections, including the risk of underage betting and threats to game integrity.

Judge Woodbury ruled that the Commodity Exchange Act does not vest exclusive jurisdiction over Polymarket’s contracts with the CFTC. The court found that an unlicensed participant beyond the Board’s control obstructs the agency’s ability to fulfil its statutory functions.

The judge stated that the balance of hardships and public interest in maintaining meaningful control over Nevada’s gaming industry strongly supports issuance of the temporary restraining order. The ruling prevents wagers from individuals who could influence sporting event outcomes, blocks underage participants, and keeps unsuitable individuals from involvement.

Background on Polymarket’s operations

Polymarket operates as a decentralised prediction market where users bet on the outcomes of various events. The platform gained considerable attention during the 2024 US presidential election, where it processed substantial volumes of political betting activity.

The platform uses blockchain technology and cryptocurrency for transactions. Users place bets on binary outcomes across categories including politics, sports, economics, and current events.

Polymarket returned to US operations in late 2025 after acquiring QCX LLC and QC Clearing LLC for $112 million. The acquisition of these CFTC-regulated entities allowed the platform to re-enter the American market following a three-year hiatus.

The platform previously faced regulatory action from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in 2022. Polymarket paid $1.4 million to settle charges related to operating an unregistered trading facility and was barred from serving US residents until securing proper licensing.

Nevada’s strict gaming oversight framework

Nevada maintains some of the most stringent gaming regulations in the United States. The state requires detailed licensing procedures and ongoing compliance monitoring for all gambling operations.

The Gaming Control Board holds broad authority to investigate and pursue enforcement actions against companies that fail to meet regulatory standards. Nevada’s framework aims to ensure consumer protection and maintain the integrity of gaming operations.

The state’s regulators have increasingly scrutinised emerging betting platforms, particularly those operating in digital spaces or using cryptocurrency. Nevada requires clear transparency regarding ownership structures, financial practices, and customer protections.

Legal dispute over regulatory classification

The Nevada enforcement action centres on a fundamental disagreement about how prediction market platforms should be classified under law. Polymarket maintains that its event contracts function as derivatives subject to federal CFTC oversight rather than state gaming regulation.

Nevada authorities reject this characterisation. The Gaming Control Board argues that wagering on event outcomes falls squarely within the definition of gaming under state statutes, regardless of the technological infrastructure or cryptocurrency mechanisms used to facilitate transactions.

This legal distinction carries major implications. If courts agree with Nevada’s interpretation, prediction market platforms could face licensing requirements and regulatory oversight in every state where they operate, not just federal CFTC compliance.

Broader regulatory scrutiny intensifies

The Nevada case represents part of a wider regulatory crackdown on prediction market platforms. Tennessee’s Sports Wagering Council recently sent cease-and-desist letters to Polymarket, ordering the company to pull sports-related markets accessible to Tennessee customers.

Multiple international jurisdictions have also moved against Polymarket. Hungary’s Supervisory Authority for Regulated Activities and Portugal’s Gaming Regulatory Authority both banned the platform in January 2026, citing illegal gambling activity concerns.

Several US senators, including Nevada’s Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen, wrote to the CFTC chairman in January raising concerns about suspicious trading on Polymarket’s platform and lack of safeguards against insider trading.

The February 11 hearing will provide the first judicial evaluation of these competing regulatory arguments. Judge Woodbury’s decision on the preliminary injunction request could signal how Nevada courts will balance innovation in betting technology against established gaming law principles.

The outcome may establish important precedents for how prediction market platforms must structure their operations to comply with state gaming laws.