Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont’s administration escalated its campaign to limit the availability of sports event contract trading for people in the state on Thursday. The state’s Department of Consumer Protection sent cessation demands regarding sports event contracts to the operators of nine exchanges including Polymarket.
Lamont and other state officials are already involved in multiple lawsuits over Connecticut’s gambling laws and the status of sports event contract trading, both as complainants and defendants. These letters could elevate the stakes of those disputes and put greater emphasis on the United States Supreme Court weighing in on the issues.
Connecticut governor tells exchanges to block access to sports contracts
A Sept. 10, 2026 press release from Lamont’s office states that the recipients of the correspondence “are ordered to immediately cease and desist advertising, offering, promoting, or otherwise making available ‘sports event contracts’ or any other form of unlicensed online gambling to Connecticut residents.” It adds that “failure to comply may result in additional action including, but not limited to, civil penalties under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and/or criminal penalties for violations of Connecticut’s gaming statutes.”
The nine recipients are:
- Coinbase
- Crypto.com
- Gemini
- Novig
- Polymarket
- ProphetX
- Robinhood
- Underdog Predict
- Webull
This isn’t the first time that Connecticut officials have insisted that sports event contract trading qualifies as sports wagering under the state’s gambling laws or that exchanges offering the activity are in violation of those statutes. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong sued Kalshi on that exact premise in August.
Lamont, Tong, and other figures in Connecticut’s state government are part of other disputes related to this issue. Their role in these other ongoing cases are that of defendants, though.
CFTC, Coinbase, Kalshi among parties asking courts to block Connecticut’s enforcement actions
Connecticut authorities have been the targets of lawsuits concerning enforcement efforts since December 2025 when Coinbase asked the US District Court for the District of Connecticut to enjoin those officials from taking such actions. Kalshi took the same action the same month.
The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) followed with a similar complaint in the same court in April 2026. At this time, all three disputes are pending court decisions that could surface at any time.
The complainants in these cases have argued that Connecticut’s attempts to enforce its gambling laws against exchanges offering sports event contracts to traders in the state violate the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, as federal law preempts state regulation of the contracts. They add that the contracts differ from gambling because they fit the legal definition of “swaps” under federal law.
At this time, there is no court order either on the federal or state level affecting the availability of sports event contracts in Connecticut. However, courts have also refused to stand in the way of Connecticut officials taking actions like sending these cease-and-desist orders.
To what extent Polymarket and others choose to comply with the orders could depend on developments in these court cases. The nation’s highest court also bears watching in this regard.
US Supreme Court could give final word on nature of sports event contract trading
While these events are unfolding, developments in Washington, D.C. could carry much more weight. The US Supreme Court has two petitions to review decisions affecting prediction market exchanges and state governments.
Robinhood has asked for review of Kalshi v. Assad, in which the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has opined that sports event contract trading is tantamount to gambling and Nevada is within its rights to enforce its gambling laws against exchange operators. New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement Director Mary Jo Flaherty have also asked the Supreme Court to review a decision from the US Third Circuit that enjoins them from doing the same as authorities in Nevada.
The Supreme Court taking up either case would mean that a decision would be forthcoming which would settle the legal questions in all of the disputes between Connecticut and exchange operators. If the Supreme Court declines to review the rulings, though, the lower courts will continue to adjudicate the issues.
Lamont’s new batch of cease-and-desists signal that more litigation could be forthcoming if the recipients choose not to comply with the orders. Given the already overtly litigious nature of this dispute, new filings seem a near guarantee.
More on CFTC
