Missouri Counter-Sues Novig Under UIGEA as Robinhood and Polymarket File Suit

Missouri has stopped only defending and started suing back, asking a federal judge to stop Novig taking Missourians' money under a 2006 internet gambling law. The same day Robinhood and Polymarket sued, so all six recipients of the state's September letters are now in federal court.

• Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway filed counterclaims against Novig's exchange on 9 November, seeking an injunction under the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, restitution and civil penalties
• Robinhood Derivatives sued Hanaway and the Missouri Gaming Commission's leadership the same day, saying the Solicitor General told it on 6 November that the state would seek a court order "in at least three days"
• Polymarket's US exchange also sued on 9 November, adding a Commerce Clause claim that Missouri's licences are reserved for in-state gambling boats and sports teams
• With Kalshi, Novig, Crypto.com's exchange and Underdog already in court, every recipient of Hanaway's September letters has now sued
• Four of the six cases sit in the Eastern District in St. Louis, where Missouri has asked to fold Novig's case into Kalshi's

Missouri Turns Novig's Lawsuit Into Its Own Enforcement Action

In an 83-page answer and counterclaims filed on Monday 9 November in Ludlow Exchange, LLC v. Hanaway (No. 4:26-cv-01780), Hanaway's office denied that Novig is entitled to any relief and went on the offensive. The filing, signed by Solicitor General Louis J. Capozzi III, came a day after Novig asked Senior District Judge Catherine D. Perry for a preliminary injunction.

The counterclaims allege that Novig runs unlicensed sports wagering for people in Missouri. The first is brought under the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), which lets a state attorney general ask a federal court to restrain payments tied to internet gambling that is unlawful under state law. The second alleges an unfair practice under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, carrying civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, and the third asks the court to declare Novig's operation a public nuisance. Missouri seeks temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctions, restitution and costs, and says Novig costs it "an unquantified amount of tax revenue".

Among nine affirmative defences, the state argues that Novig's claim is not ripe because no enforcement action has begun, that the Tax Injunction Act and Anti-Injunction Act bar the suit, and that Novig has unclean hands because it never tried to obtain a Missouri licence. These are allegations, and Novig has not yet responded to them.

Robinhood and Polymarket Were the Last Two Holdouts

Robinhood Derivatives, LLC filed No. 4:26-cv-01932 in the Eastern District on 9 November against Hanaway, Gaming Commission Executive Director Michael A. Leara, Chairman Jan M. Zimmerman and four commissioners. Its complaint says it is a futures commission merchant, not an exchange, routing customers' orders to Kalshi, ForecastEx, Rothera and the exchange behind Crypto.com's OG.com. It says it replied to Hanaway's 16 September letter on 16 October, and that on 6 November the Solicitor General said the attorney general "now intends to seek a judicial order compelling compliance with state law in at least three days". Its single preemption count asks for a temporary restraining order and injunctions, but no separate motion was on the docket on Tuesday.

QCX LLC, which trades as Polymarket US, filed No. 4:26-cv-01930 in the same court on 9 November. Its complaint says talks with the attorney general's office failed, and adds to preemption a Commerce Clause count: new Missouri licences are open only to "gambling boat[s]" and "sports team[s]" located in the state, and licensees may serve only people physically in Missouri. It cites the CFTC's 5 November interpretation that exchanges generally may not restrict access by state.

Kalshi's case before Judge Maria A. Lanahan, where it seeks a temporary restraining order, held a five-minute status conference on 9 November; the docket says the plaintiffs will file a status report.

UIGEA Is a Bold Choice Against a Federal Exchange

The counterclaim gives Missouri a federal claim and a way to obtain an injunction without starting a state court action that Novig could argue is preempted. But UIGEA's definition of a "bet or wager" excludes any transaction "conducted on or subject to the rules of a registered entity" under the Commodity Exchange Act. Novig's exchange says it is a CFTC-designated contract market, so Missouri's claim depends on a court treating its contracts as outside that carve-out. It also sits awkwardly with the state's own ripeness defence: by counter-suing, Missouri has turned the enforcement it calls contingent into an actual claim.

Robinhood Chose Court in Missouri After Conceding in Ohio

In Ohio, Robinhood agreed on 26 October to stop new sports contracts in return for the regulator holding off enforcement while appeals run. In Missouri it sued instead, after the state signalled it would go to court within days. The difference appears to be leverage: Ohio could rely on a Sixth Circuit ruling, while the Eighth Circuit, which covers Missouri, has not yet ruled on sports event contracts.

One State, Six Suits, Two Districts

Missouri now defends four suits in St. Louis and two in the Western District, and its consolidation motion covers only Novig and Kalshi. The Robinhood and Polymarket cases are fresh candidates for the same treatment, and the state's counterclaim is a template it can repeat in each.

Missouri has answered the exchanges' race to federal court by bringing its own claims there. Whether UIGEA can reach a CFTC-registered exchange is now a live question before a St. Louis judge.