Is Novig legal in Missouri?

The letter is dated September 17, 2026 and addressed to "Ludlow Exchange, LLC ('Novig')" through its registered agent in Dover, Delaware, under the subject line "Unlicensed Sport Wagering Operations in Missouri." It comes from Attorney General Catherine L. Hanaway's office and is signed by her solicitor general (p.3). Ludlow Exchange is the company the CFTC lists as a designated contract market, designated June 16, 2026.

The office builds its case from what Novig publishes about itself. The letter says Novig, "according to its website," offers sports wagering to people located in Missouri without submitting to regulation by the Missouri Gaming Commission, and its one footnote points to a Novig blog post about the states where Novig can be used (p.1). It then reasons that since Missourians approved sports wagering in December 2024, any online platform taking wagers from people in the state on professional and collegiate sports has needed a commission license, a requirement it calls "not optional" (p.1, citing Mo. Const. art. III, § 39(g)1).

The office's September 18 release names six recipients, Novig fourth, and says facilitating sports event contracts "constitutes unlicensed sports wagering under Missouri law." Both documents state the attorney general's reading. If Novig "persists," the letter adds, the state "will pursue available enforcement actions" (p.1).

Money is the second charge. The letter states that Missouri levies "a wagering tax of 10%" on the adjusted gross revenue from in-state sports wagering, and charges online platforms an initial license fee and a renewal fee every five years, each of which "could be as much as $500,000" (pp.1-2, citing art. III, § 39(g)6 and 10.a). It says those sums go to Missouri's schools and colleges and to a Compulsive Gaming Prevention Fund (p.2, citing § 39(g)15).

It then turns the measure on Novig: Novig "has made money from sports wagers" placed from Missouri, has "kept all of that money for itself," and until it pays "will not be permitted to offer the use of its online sports wagering platform in Missouri" (p.2). Those are the attorney general's statements. We found no Missouri Gaming Commission action assessing a tax or fee against Novig. The 10% reaches an operator's revenue, not what anyone trading on Novig makes.

No. The letters dated September 16 to Kalshi, Polymarket, Robinhood and Crypto.com, and the September 17 letter to Underdog, each cite Missouri's "affirmative duty" on platforms to prevent wagers by anyone under 21. Novig's letter has no such passage. The release's sentence on underage access names five of the six companies and leaves Novig out.

Novig's Help Center, read October 28, 2026, lists "Be 21 or older" among its trading requirements. Its Wisconsin complaint says only participants at least 21 may trade, "a threshold Novig applies even though federal law does not require it" (p.3, ¶7). The letter does not say why it omits age, and we could not determine why.

The letter closes by asking Novig to confirm, "within thirty days of the date of this letter," that it complies with Missouri law or has stopped sports wagering activity in the state (p.3). Thirty days from September 17 is October 17, 2026. Failing that, it says, "the State of Missouri will take legal action against Novig," while Missouri "remains open to possible legislative reforms in the future" (p.3).

As of October 28, 2026, searching the attorney general's posts since September 1 for Novig, Ludlow and prediction markets turned up only the September 18 release, and the Missouri Gaming Commission's home page names neither Novig nor Ludlow. We did not search Missouri's state courts. Our Novig legal page lists a federal case in the Eastern District of Missouri, No. 4:26-cv-01780. We could not read that court's docket for this check, so this page does not describe it. Novig's reply to the letter, if there was one, is not public.

We found no document in which Novig answers Missouri, so its side comes from its own pages and filings. Its Help Center says "the contracts you trade are regulated as financial derivatives under federal commodities law," and that "Novig's legal basis for operating rests on federal regulation rather than the state-by-state licensing a sportsbook needs."

Novig has pressed that argument in court against another state. Its August 14, 2026 complaint against Wisconsin officials (W.D. Wis. No. 3:26-cv-00761) calls event contracts swaps that Congress placed within the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction, and asks the court to stop the state from enforcing its gambling laws against them (pp.1-2, ¶¶1, 5). That is Novig's argument, not a ruling.

The Missouri letter anticipates it. It says Missouri "is aware that Novig claims it offers 'event contracts'" under federal commodities law, and that Missouri "shares the same view as the majority of federal courts" that such contracts are not swaps and that federal law does not preempt the state here (p.2). It cites eight decisions: seven in Kalshi cases and one involving North American Derivatives Exchange. Novig is a party to none of them, and the count of courts is the attorney general's.

Novig's Help Center, read October 28, 2026, says Novig "is available nationwide, with the exception of Nevada, Arizona, and Michigan," and that eligibility depends on where you physically are when you trade, not where you live. Missouri is not on that list. The letter's demands concern offering sports wagering; it says nothing about accounts, deposits, withdrawals or open positions, and no Missouri order we found does. Beyond that page, we could not determine whether Novig has changed anything for people in Missouri since the letter.

Connecticut's governor announced on September 10, 2026 that the Department of Consumer Protection had ordered nine prediction markets, Novig among them, to stop offering sports event contracts to state residents. Ohio's Casino Control Commission sent Novig Betting, Inc. and Ludlow Exchange a cease-and-desist on October 2, 2026, asking for written confirmation within fourteen days. In Wisconsin, Novig went to court first: its complaint says the state had sued other exchanges and that Novig filed to keep the same from happening to it (p.1, ¶2). Every state is on the Novig legal page, and the other Missouri letters are covered on Kalshi in Missouri, Polymarket in Missouri and Robinhood in Missouri.

No: it is a demand about who may offer sports wagering in Missouri, and the 10% levy it cites falls on a licensed operator's revenue, so it is not a ruling on federal income tax. Novig taxes covers how a Novig year is reported under the three common ways people file, since the IRS has issued no guidance on event contracts.