Underdog sues Missouri while Crypto.com, Novig and Kalshi seek interim relief

Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway on 8 November 2026 in the Central Division of the Western District of Missouri; the same-day docket entry also records an item labeled "Preliminary Injunction" in the case. That weekend at least three of the six platforms that received cease-and-desist letters in September sought preliminary relief in federal court: North American Derivatives Exchange (operating as OG.com Prediction Markets) filed a preliminary injunction motion on 8 November, Ludlow Exchange (Novig) filed its own preliminary injunction motion on 8 November in St. Louis, and Kalshi filed for a temporary restraining order on 6 November and requested a hearing within 14 days.

Court filings and key deadlines

Underdog filed Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. v. Hanaway, No. 2:26-cv-04300, on 8 November in the Central Division of the Western District of Missouri, assigned to Judge Beth Phillips. The docket lists three pro hac vice applications for counsel and, according to the entry, an item annotated "Preliminary Injunction." The complaint and the preliminary-injunction entry were not publicly available on the morning of 9 November, so additional defendants, the specific legal theories and the relief sought could not be confirmed at that time.

North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc.—the entity behind Crypto.com in this dispute and which trades as OG.com Prediction Markets—filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on 8 November in case No. 4:26-cv-00969 before Judge Greg Kays in the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City). Its complaint, filed 16 October, seeks a declaration and a permanent injunction preventing Hanaway and the directors and commissioners of the Missouri Gaming Commission from enforcing state gambling laws against the exchange. Exhibits listed include a declaration from counsel Robert A. Fumerton, a statement by Scott Kallback, a 30 January 2025 certification about the contract category the filing says covers its sports contracts, and Hanaway’s 16 September letter. Missouri’s response to the injunction motion is due 23 November; its responsive pleading to the full complaint is due 21 December.

In the Eastern District of Missouri, Ludlow Exchange, LLC (Novig) filed a preliminary-injunction motion and supporting brief on 8 November in Ludlow Exchange, LLC v. Hanaway, No. 4:26-cv-01780. KalshiEX filed for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on 6 November in KalshiEX v. Hanaway, No. 4:26-cv-01860, requesting a hearing within 14 days before District Judge Maria A. Lanahan; its defendants include Hanaway, the Missouri Gaming Commission and six commission officials.

Origin of the cease letters and scope of the suits

Attorney General Catherine Hanaway’s office sent cease-and-desist letters on 16 and 17 September to six operators, demanding they stop offering contracts on sporting events in Missouri or obtain a license from the Missouri Gaming Commission, pay a 10% tax on adjusted gross revenue (AGG), and stop serving customers under 21. The six named recipients, disclosed in the attorney general’s filings and public statements, include Underdog, North American Derivatives Exchange (OG.com), Ludlow Exchange (Novig), KalshiEX, Polymarket and Robinhood. Of those six, four had filed federal suits in Missouri by 9 November: Underdog, North American Derivatives Exchange/OG.com, Ludlow Exchange/Novig and KalshiEX.

Polymarket and Robinhood had not filed federal suits in Missouri as of 9 November. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s 5 November guidance on state geofencing complicates a unilateral state exit under federal rules, leaving those operators the choice to litigate or wait.

Legal strategy: pre-emption and rush for preliminary relief

In each complaint filed so far, the exchanges argue that the Commodity Exchange Act pre-empts the state gambling laws Missouri is trying to apply to them. OG.com’s complaint, for example, seeks declaratory relief and a permanent injunction to block enforcement of state law; its exhibits include the 30 January 2025 contract-category certification the company invokes for its sports contracts.

The preliminary-relief filings show exchanges’ concern about the months-long gap until an appeal is resolved. Kalshi has an active appeal in the Eighth Circuit, KalshiEX v. Bird, No. 26-2874; on 28 October Kalshi requested an extension to file its brief until 7 December, which means an appellate decision is months away. The companies are now seeking district-court protection to prevent state enforcement actions while the merits are decided.

“An exchange that waits for [the Eighth Circuit] carries the risk of a state enforcement action in the meantime,” the scheduling analysis in the court papers notes, and that timing concern explains the emergency motions filed in early November.

Consolidation and risk of conflicting rulings

The State moved on 5 November to consolidate Novig’s case with Kalshi’s in the Eastern District (St. Louis), a step aimed at reducing the risk of inconsistent rulings within Missouri. The four suits filed by 9 November are split across two districts: the Western District houses the North American Derivatives Exchange case (Kansas City) and the Western District’s Central Division contains Underdog’s case (Jefferson City); the Eastern District houses Novig’s and Kalshi’s cases in St. Louis. Consolidation would place substantially similar pre-emption claims before the same judge.

Immediate deadlines and what’s next

Missouri has until 23 November to respond to North American Derivatives Exchange’s preliminary-injunction motion. Kalshi requested a hearing within 14 days of its 6 November filing, and Underdog entered a "Preliminary Injunction" docket item on 8 November although the text was not public on 9 November. The first ruling on preliminary relief will give an early signal whether a district judge within the Eighth Circuit will grant temporary protection to the exchanges ahead of any appellate decision.

This article is based on federal court filings and cited documents: Underdog Exchange DCM v. Hanaway, No. 2:26-cv-04300; North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. v. Hanaway, No. 4:26-cv-00969; Ludlow Exchange, LLC v. Hanaway, No. 4:26-cv-01780; KalshiEX v. Hanaway, No. 4:26-cv-01860; and Kalshi’s extension in the Eighth Circuit, KalshiEX v. Bird, No. 26-2874.