A federal judge tossed Robinhood Derivatives's attempt to block Massachusetts from enforcing its sports-gaming laws last week after the court determined the financial services company prematurely gambled on how the state will regulate the mobile sports-betting boom. U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns for the District of Massachusetts said Robinhood's claims that is "event contracts" cannot be considered sports-betting under Massachusetts law will have to wait until the state's attorney general actually enforces any regulations. Stearns' five-page ruling said the company failed to show any imminent threat from the Bay State because its regulators have agreed to refrain from taking any action while proceedings continue against KalshiEX, Robinhood's sports-betting partner, in a separate claim in the Suffolk Superior Court. Stearns said the federal court lacked the authority to consider if Robinhood's claim that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has "exclusive jurisdiction" over transactions involving event contracts without a concrete dispute. "Robinhood has not shown that its sole federal claim is ripe for judicial review," Stearns wrote. "The Commonwealth has stipulated that it will not file any enforcement action against Robinhood while its motion for a preliminary injunction remains pending in the proceeding brought against Kalshi in the Massachusetts courts. There thus is no risk that the Commonwealth will engage in the conduct which Robinhood alleges to be unlawful prior to a decision being issued by a state court of competent jurisdiction. Whether there is a risk that the Commonwealth will engage in that conduct after the state court rules on the motion depends entirely on what that decision proves to be." Stearn's decision against Robinhood comes after the company sought a preliminary injunction to protect its sports-betting practices against state regulators in September. Its suit named multiple commissioners from the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, the commission itself and Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell as defendants. Robinhood's suit was seen as a response to a complaint Campbell filed Sept. 12 in Suffolk Superior Court against Kalshi. The state alleged Kalshi offered sports-betting without a license in violation of state law and claimed its “event contracts” closely resemble sports wagers offered by licensed operators, the office said. Event contracts are a partnership between Robinhood and other financial services companies allowing customers to trade on their predictions about future events, according to Robinhood. Approved customers access event contracts through Robinhood's platform, but Robinhood maintains that all actual trade occurs on its partner Kalshi's regulated exchange platform, according to Robinhood's September complaint. Stearns said the damage to Robinhood is only hypothetical at the moment. He noted the state has agreed to refrain from bringing any enforcement action against Robinhood until the Suffolk court determines if Kalshi should be permanently enjoined from engaging in sport-betting without a license. He also told Robinhood the decision could end up since it could avoid any risk if the court denies the state's motion. "Robinhood has similarly not shown that it will suffer any hardship if adjudication of its claim is delayed until it ripens," the court said. "The hardship prong 'focuses on direct and immediate harm. It is unconcerned with wholly contingent harm.' Here, because the threat of enforcement is ... contingent, any hardship is also necessarily contingent." Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott of Boston and Cravath, Swaine & Moore of New York are representing Robinhood. Lead attorneys Craig Waksler and Nicholas J. Schneider of Eckert Seamans did not return Law.com's request for comment. Jared Rinehimer, Alda Chan, Joshua Randall Edlin, Louisa Castrucci and Michael P. Moore Jr., of the Massachusetts AG's office, represented the state. Law.com's request for comment from the office went unanwered.