Is Robinhood legal in Missouri?

The three-page letter is dated September 16, 2026 and addressed to Robinhood Derivatives, LLC care of its registered agent in Dover, Delaware, under the heading "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). Robinhood's event contracts overview names Robinhood Derivatives, a futures commission merchant registered with the CFTC, as the entity that offers its event contracts.

Its opening line is the office's charge. It calls Robinhood "an online sports wagering platform" taking wagers from people in Missouri while not "submitting to regulation by the Missouri Gaming Commission" (p.1). It then offers Robinhood two paths. One is to cease and desist. The other has three parts: obtain a commission license, "pay all associated state taxes and fees," and stop offering sports wagering to anyone in Missouri under 21 (p.1).

The attorney general's September 18 release says the office sent letters to six companies, Robinhood last in its list, and that "Failure to comply will result in enforcement action by the State of Missouri."

The letter treats it as money Robinhood owes. The measure itself is in Missouri's constitution, Article III, Section 39(g), which the Revisor of Statutes lists as effective December 5, 2024:

• Who and what is taxed. Subsection 10.a imposes "a wagering tax of 10%" on the adjusted gross revenue from sports wagering "conducted by each licensee and each sports wagering operator acting on behalf of a licensee." Adjusted gross revenue is defined as what a licensee takes in from sports wagering minus winnings paid out and other listed items, such as voided wagers and some promotional credits.
• License fees. Under subsection 6.b, a mobile license applicant pays a fee set by the commission "not to exceed $500,000," and a renewal fee every five years capped at the same amount.
• Where the money goes. Subsection 10.b appropriates the tax to education only after it reimburses the commission's regulatory expenses and pays the greater of 10% or $5,000,000 to the Compulsive Gaming Fund. (The letter cites subsection 15 for its point that the money goes to education and a gaming fund.)

The letter applies that measure to Robinhood: it says Robinhood "has made money from sports wagers" placed from Missouri, has "kept all of that money for itself," and may not keep running its platform in the state until it pays (p.2). That application is the attorney general's position. We found no Missouri Gaming Commission or revenue department action assessing the tax against Robinhood. It is a tax on an operator's revenue, not on what a trader makes.

Missouri's commission rule, 11 C.S.R. § 45-20.360, bars sports wagering by anyone under 21 and, in the letter's words, puts an "affirmative duty" on platforms to prevent it (p.2); the constitution's subsection 3 says a licensee "shall not offer sports wagering to individuals who are under twenty-one years of age." The letter says Robinhood's Customer Agreement admits anyone at least 18 who is of "legal age under the laws of the jurisdiction where [that person] reside[s]," which it says is 18 in Missouri (p.2). Robinhood's overview page, read October 25, 2026, lists the age requirement for event contracts as "You must be 18 or older."

The release goes further, saying five of the six companies, Robinhood among them, "either permit underage users to access their products or lack adequate safeguards." That is the attorney general's characterization.

The letter ends by asking Robinhood to confirm one of two things "within thirty days of the date of this letter": that it complies with Missouri law, or that it has stopped sports wagering activity in the state (p.3). That window closed on October 16, 2026. Failing that, the letter says, Missouri will take legal action, though it also says the state is open to legislative change later on (p.3).

As of October 25, 2026, we found no follow-up. Searching the attorney general's site for posts since September 1, the only match for Robinhood was the September 18 release. The Missouri Gaming Commission's news page lists nothing newer than January 2026. EDGAR's full-text search found no Robinhood filing since September 16 that mentions Missouri and event contracts. We could not search the federal dockets in Missouri for this check, and court indexes lag the courts' own systems, so a filing could exist that we have not seen. Robinhood's reply to the letter, if any, is not public.

Robinhood has not answered Missouri in any document we found, so its position comes from elsewhere. Its overview page calls an event contract "a financial derivative" and says Robinhood's event contracts "are not bets." In Nevada it went to court: its petition in Robinhood Derivatives v. Dreitzer, No. 26-338, filed September 10, 2026, asks the Supreme Court "whether the Commodity Exchange Act preempts the application of state gaming laws to sports-related event contracts traded on federally regulated contract markets." The docket shows the respondents' time to answer extended to November 13, 2026.

The Missouri letter anticipates that argument. It accuses Robinhood of trying to sidestep other states' sports gambling laws by calling its products event contracts, or swaps, under federal commodities law, and it sides with what it calls "the majority of federal courts" on preemption (p.2). The eight decisions it lists are Kalshi cases plus one brought by North American Derivatives Exchange; none has Robinhood as a party, and the letter does not cite the Ninth Circuit's August 28, 2026 memorandum in Robinhood's own Nevada appeal (No. 25-7831), which affirmed the district court's refusal to bar Nevada from enforcing its gaming laws against Robinhood. The Nevada case, step by step, is on Robinhood in Nevada.

We could not determine it. Robinhood's restrictions page, read October 25, 2026, says "Maryland residents can't trade event contracts" and that Nevada residents cannot open new sports contracts. The overview page, read the same day, words it differently: "Maryland and Nevada residents can't trade sports event contracts," and Michigan residents cannot open new ones as of September 9, 2026. Neither page mentions Missouri.

Money already on the platform is not something the letter takes up: its demands concern offering sports wagering, and neither it nor any Missouri court order we found speaks to cash balances, deposits or open contracts. Actions against Robinhood in other states are collected on the Robinhood legal page.

Yes. The release names both among the six and links a letter to each. Kalshi's letter, dated September 16 and addressed to KalshiEX LLC, rests on the same license, tax and age points, and on age it targets Kalshi's Member Agreement. Robinhood's overview names KalshiEX LLC as one of the four exchanges its event contracts come through, so Kalshi's Missouri dispute concerns contracts Robinhood also offers. Kalshi in Missouri and Polymarket in Missouri follow those two companies. Missouri's federal courts sit in the Eighth Circuit, whose September 17 scheduling order in Kalshi's Iowa appeal, KalshiEX v. Bird, No. 26-2874, set Kalshi's brief for November 6, 2026; Robinhood is not a party.

Missouri's demand concerns who may run sports wagering in the state, and its 10% levy reaches a licensee's revenue rather than a customer's gains, so nothing in it decides how your trades are taxed. Robinhood event contracts taxes shows how a Robinhood year comes out under the three ways we most often see people file, since the IRS has issued no guidance on event contracts.