135 lawsuits and 14 administrative or enforcement actions, in 30 states and DC.
Prediction Market Litigation Tracker The fight over sports contracts is headed to the Supreme Court
Federal appeals courts have split over whether states can regulate sports event contracts. Here is every U.S. case and regulatory action we track, with its docket and latest ruling.
New Jersey, Robinhood and, reportedly, Crypto.com’s exchange. None granted yet.
State of Arkansas ex rel. Tim Griffin v. KalshiEX LLC and Kalshi Inc.: complaint filed seeking injunctive and monetary relief; no ruling verified.
Supreme Court
How the question got to the Supreme Court
Whether federal commodities law preempts state gambling law for sports event contracts.
- Courts divide2025–2026District courts reach opposite answers on whether sports contracts are swaps and whether federal law preempts state gambling law.
- First appellate rulingApril 6, 2026The Third Circuit rules 2–1 for Kalshi against New Jersey.
- Circuit splitAugust 28, 2026The Ninth Circuit rules against Kalshi in Nevada, 3–0.
- Petitions filedSep 2–11, 2026New Jersey, Robinhood and, reportedly, Crypto.com’s exchange ask the Supreme Court to decide.
- The Court decidesNo dateFour justices must vote to hear a case before briefing and argument. None has been granted.
| Third Circuit | New Jersey (KalshiEX v. Flaherty) | Decided Apr 6, 2026: 2–1 for Kalshi |
|---|---|---|
| Ninth Circuit | Nevada (KalshiEX v. Assad) | Aug. 28: 3–0 against Kalshi; panel and en banc rehearing denied Nov. 4. No judge requested an en banc vote. |
| Sixth Circuit | Ohio and Tennessee, consolidated; CFTC a party | Sep. 25 panel ruling against Kalshi; rehearing pending. Oct. 28 directive: response due Nov. 12, 3,900-word limit, no extensions. |
| Fourth Circuit | Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Commission | Argued May 7, 2026 |
| Second Circuit | New York and Connecticut | Nov. 3: injunctions pending appeal denied in Kalshi's New York/Connecticut and Coinbase's Connecticut appeals; no final merits ruling |
Appeals courts holding the same question. Opinions: Third Circuit · Ninth Circuit · Sixth Circuit
Who’s suing whom
Who is bringing cases, and against whom
Every matter’s parties, from its record. Pick a relationship or a party to see its cases in the table below.
- 135Unique lawsuits
- 14Administrative or enforcement matters
- 31Unique appellate dockets
- 30States involvedplus DC
- 103Primary source verified
- Nov 10Next hearingRemote scheduling conference, 1:30 p.m. Mountain · New Mexico
Type of matter
Who brings cases against whom
A matter with several parties on a side counts once in each relationship it belongs to.
Parties
Federal regulators 2
States, DC and cities 24
Tribal nations 8
Platforms 12
Private plaintiffs and individuals 10
All cases
Every matter, most recent activity first
149 records: 135 lawsuits and 14 administrative or enforcement actions. Open a row for the latest activity, parties, docket and every source.
| Status | Sources | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
State of Arkansas ex rel. Tim Griffin v. KalshiEX LLC and Kalshi Inc.State · Circuit Court of Independence County, Arkansas, Civil DivisionOn November 4, 2026, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin filed a civil complaint against KalshiEX LLC and Kalshi Inc. in Independence County Circuit Court. Arkansas alleges that Kalshi offers unlawful wagering and misleads consumers about legality, safety and trading risks, asserting Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks an injunction, restitution, civil penalties, unpaid taxes and other relief. These are the state's allegations and requested remedies, not court findings or an issued shutdown order. The official 57-page complaint bears a November 4 filing stamp.
| Arkansas | November 4, 2026 | Complaint filed seeking injunctive and monetary relief; no ruling verified | Sources› |
KalshiEX, LLC v. AssadPlatform challenge · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (from D. Nev.)On November 4, 2026, the Ninth Circuit denied Kalshi's petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in No. 25-7516 (DktEntry 231.1). The panel voted unanimously to deny rehearing; the full court was advised and no judge requested an en banc vote. The order resolves the September 9 rehearing petition concerning the August 28 preliminary-injunction decision. It does not itself grant Supreme Court review or decide the separate Arizona appeal.
| Nevada | November 4, 2026 | Panel and en banc rehearing denied November 4 | Sources› |
Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. v. Tong et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the District of ConnecticutOn November 3, 2026, the Second Circuit denied Coinbase Financial Markets' motion for an injunction pending appeal in No. 26-2297. The complete two-page court-stamped order, DktEntry 74.1 in No. 26-1835, captions Coinbase v. Tong alongside Kalshi's New York and Connecticut appeals and states that the three appeals are being considered in tandem. It denies all three motions because the appellants failed to make the required showing that injunctions pending appeal were warranted. Certified DktEntry 75.1 reproduces the order. The denial concerns temporary appellate protection, not a final merits judgment or dismissal of Coinbase's appeal. The underlying Connecticut action remains identified as No. 3:25-cv-02121.
| Connecticut | November 3, 2026 | Injunction pending appeal denied November 3; appeal remains pending | Sources› |
KalshiEX LLC v. New York State Gaming CommissionPlatform challenge · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York; on appeal to the Second CircuitOn November 3, 2026, the Second Circuit denied the motions for injunctions pending appeal in Kalshi v. Williams (26-1835), Kalshi v. Cafferelli (26-2239) and Coinbase Financial Markets v. Tong (26-2297), considered in tandem. The complete two-page order, DktEntry 74.1, says the appellants failed to make the required showing that injunctions pending appeal were warranted; certified DktEntry 75.1 reproduces it. This denies temporary appellate protection, not the appeals themselves or a final merits ruling. Entry 73 records that the motion was heard earlier that day. Wallach and Inner City Press's hearing-close reports that the matter was under advisement preceded the later order. October 30 entry 70 granted the CFTC permission to participate in oral argument as amicus; that signed order remains unavailable, so no argument-time allocation or additional conditions are established. Entry 72 and the court-stamped DktEntry 72.1 PDF confirm New York officials' October 30 appellees brief. The prior complete October 21 notice, DktEntry 60.1, identified the hearing as injunction-pending-appeal argument, not merits argument. Party arguments and judicial questions are not holdings.
| New York | November 3, 2026 | Injunction pending appeal denied November 3; appeal remains pending | Sources› |
KalshiEX LLC v. Connecticut regulatorsPlatform challenge · U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut; on appeal to the Second CircuitOn November 3, 2026, the Second Circuit denied Kalshi's motion for an injunction pending appeal in No. 26-2239. The complete court-stamped order, DktEntry 74.1 in No. 26-1835, identifies this Connecticut appeal alongside Kalshi's New York appeal and Coinbase's Connecticut appeal, says the three are being considered in tandem, and denies all three motions because the appellants failed to make the required showing. The certified copy is DktEntry 75.1. This is a denial of temporary appellate protection, not a final merits decision or dismissal of the appeal. By September 1, Kalshi had argued in appellate briefing that the Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over transactions on a designated contract market even if the underlying agreement is not a swap; that remains a party argument, not a court holding.
| Connecticut | November 3, 2026 | Injunction pending appeal denied November 3; appeal remains pending | Sources› |
Joseph Giganti, Sr. v. Patrick W. Moynihan, Jr. et al.Federal · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of WisconsinOn November 2, 2026, Judge Byron B. Conway denied Joseph Giganti, Sr.'s motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF 4) in an order entered as ECF 22. The official court feed confirms the exact case and order entry; reproduced court-stamped page 7 of 7 contains the signed denial. The order's preceding six pages were not recovered, so its reasoning and any additional terms have not been verified. Denial of preliminary relief does not by itself establish dismissal or a final merits judgment. Giganti's October 17 federal civil-rights complaint alleges that Wisconsin's interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 6.03(2) would disqualify him from voting and expose him to prosecution if he voted after purchasing election contracts. He seeks prospective declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Those are the plaintiff's allegations, not findings established by the inspected excerpt.
| Wisconsin | November 2, 2026 | Preliminary-injunction motion denied November 2; no final disposition verified | Sources› |
United States of America and CFTC v. State of Utah and Derek BrownFederal · U.S. District Court, District of Utah, Central DivisionJudge Robert J. Shelby's October 30, 2026 order (ECF 10) sets an in-person status and scheduling conference on the motion and complaint for November 6, 2026, at 1:00 PM in Courtroom 3.100. Plaintiffs must serve both defendants with the order, motion and complaint in a manner providing actual notice by 5:00 PM November 3, and file proof of service by 5:00 PM November 4. The order does not grant a TRO or preliminary injunction. The United States and CFTC moved for those forms of relief October 29 in ECF 7; the full motion remains unverified. The underlying complaint was filed October 26 and announced by the CFTC October 27, arguing federal commodities law preempts Utah's event-contract enforcement. This is a separate federal lawsuit, not a removal of Utah's October 20 state action, No. 260908356, or the earlier KalshiEX v. Cox challenge. Preemption and irreparable harm remain plaintiffs' arguments, not court findings.
| Utah | October 30, 2026 | Status and scheduling conference set for November 6; TRO and preliminary-injunction motion pending | Sources› |
Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. v. Raoul et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of IllinoisOctober 30, 2026: Judge Martha M. Pacold entered a consolidated preliminary injunction in Coinbase's case (ECF 98), the Kalshi case and the United States/CFTC case. It bars the defendants and their successors, agents and employees from enforcing the specified Illinois gambling laws against trading swaps, including sports event contracts, listed on or available through CFTC-regulated designated contract markets and futures commission merchants. Covered enforcement includes licensing, associated fees and taxes, criminal provisions, civil or criminal actions, subpoenas and other compulsory investigative process. The docket records Illinois defendants' notice of appeal that day (ECF 99) and a joint status report due November 12 (ECF 97). This is preliminary relief, not a final merits judgment or proof of current app availability; an appeal notice does not establish a stay or reversal.
| Illinois | October 30, 2026 | Preliminary injunction entered; Illinois appeals | Sources› |
Illinois Gaming Board cease-and-desist proceedings concerning KalshiEX LLC and other designated contract markets; related cases United States of America and CFTC v. State of Illinois et al. and KalshiEX LLC v. Raoul et al.State · Administrative — Illinois Gaming BoardOctober 30, 2026: In the related Kalshi, Coinbase and United States/CFTC cases, Judge Martha M. Pacold entered a consolidated preliminary injunction. It bars the defendants and their successors, agents and employees from enforcing the specified Illinois gambling laws against trading swaps, including sports event contracts, listed on or available through CFTC-regulated designated contract markets and futures commission merchants. The restriction includes licensing, associated fees and taxes, criminal provisions, civil or criminal enforcement actions, subpoenas and other compulsory investigative process. Illinois defendants filed notices of appeal that day. The preliminary court order does not rescind the Gaming Board's letters or finally resolve the merits; an appeal notice does not itself establish a stay or reversal.
| Illinois | October 30, 2026 | Covered enforcement preliminarily enjoined; Illinois appeals | Sources› |
KalshiEX LLC v. Raoul et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court, Northern District of IllinoisOctober 30, 2026: Judge Martha M. Pacold entered a consolidated preliminary injunction in the Kalshi, Coinbase and United States/CFTC cases. It bars the defendants and their successors, agents and employees from enforcing the specified Illinois gambling laws against trading swaps, including sports event contracts, listed on or available through CFTC-regulated designated contract markets and futures commission merchants. The covered enforcement includes licensing, associated fees and taxes, criminal provisions, civil or criminal actions, subpoenas and other compulsory investigative process. Illinois defendants filed notice of appeal to the Seventh Circuit that day (ECF 65), challenging the October 30 injunction (ECF 64). This is preliminary relief, not a final merits judgment; the notice does not itself establish a stay or reversal.
| Illinois | October 30, 2026 | Preliminary injunction entered; Illinois appeals | Sources› |
New York v. KalshiEX LLCState · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (removed action; remand disputed)An October 30, 2026 joint letter in the removed attorney-general action, S.D.N.Y. No. 1:26-cv-06550-VSB, presents a dispute over the New York attorney general's September 25 revised investigative subpoena. Kalshi seeks a protective order under Rule 26(c), or alternatively the All Writs Act, arguing that the subpoena improperly obtains discovery about the pending enforcement claims outside the federal rules. The attorney general opposes relief, describing a separate investigation into potentially false or deceptive advertising, including whether market-maker relationships make Kalshi's marketing claims misleading. The attorney general argues that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, should abstain and that Kalshi's challenge is premature because no state court has ordered compliance with this subpoena. These are the parties' positions, not court findings or an order blocking or enforcing the subpoena. The letter states that the remand motion remains pending. Reproduced court-stamped pages 1-5 of 6 were reviewed; page 6 and the subpoena exhibits were not recovered.
| New York | October 30, 2026 | Remand disputed; October 30 joint letter presents investigative-subpoena dispute, not a ruling | Sources› |
United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Illinois et al.Federal · U.S. District Court, Northern District of IllinoisOctober 30, 2026: Judge Martha M. Pacold entered a consolidated preliminary injunction (ECF 105) covering this case and the related Coinbase and Kalshi cases. It bars the defendants and their successors, agents and employees from enforcing the specified Illinois gambling laws against trading swaps, including sports event contracts, listed on or available through CFTC-regulated designated contract markets and futures commission merchants. The order covers licensing, associated fees and taxes, criminal provisions, civil or criminal actions, subpoenas and other compulsory investigative process. The docket records Illinois defendants' notice of appeal that day (ECF 106). The court also directed a joint status report proposing next steps by November 12 (ECF 104). The injunction is preliminary, not a final merits judgment; an appeal notice does not establish a stay or reversal.
| Illinois | October 30, 2026 | Preliminary injunction entered; Illinois appeals | Sources› |
KalshiEX LLC v. FlahertyPlatform challenge · U.S. Supreme Court (from the Third Circuit)October 30, 2026: the Supreme Court granted KalshiEX's motion to extend its response deadline to and including December 7. Paul D. Clement requested the unopposed 28-day extension October 29; it replaces the November 9 deadline. This extends briefing, not a grant of certiorari or a merits ruling. October 8: The Casino Association of New Jersey filed an amicus brief seeking joint consideration with the Nevada petitions, reversal of the Third Circuit and affirmance of the Ninth Circuit. The American Gaming Association asks for prompt review with the Nevada petitions and a decision this Term rather than awaiting CFTC rulemaking. Separate briefs from the NFL, Gary Gensler and Christopher Dodd seek review and argue Dodd-Frank did not displace state sports-betting authority; the NFL also raises game-integrity and consumer-protection concerns. The docket records Ohio, other states and DC and Stop Predatory Gambling and others filing October 7, and 145 Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations filing October 8. October 6: The Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Indians sought review and reversal, arguing Kalshi's sports contracts threaten tribal gaming authority and revenues. Appended declarations describe a September 22 trade on the Cabazon Reservation and a tribal gaming commission investigation. These are amici's arguments and assertions, not court findings. The petition was docketed September 8; review has not been granted.
| New Jersey | October 30, 2026 | Certiorari pending; October 30 extension granted, Kalshi response due December 7 | Sources› |
In the Matter of the Application of New York State Gaming Commission v. Kalshi, Inc. and KalshiEX LLCState · Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New YorkOctober 29, 2026: Kalshi requested transfer of this subpoena-compliance proceeding to the Commercial Division in NYSCEF Document 23. The Gaming Commission opposed in Document 24, arguing that the proceeding concerns document production rather than an adjudication of whether Kalshi violated state gambling law. Those are the litigants' positions; no transfer decision has been verified. Court-stamped first pages, 1 of 5 and 1 of 2 respectively, were reviewed after Wallach reported the letters October 30. Earlier October 29, Justice Sabrina B. Kraus signed Document 22 directing Kalshi, Inc. and KalshiEX LLC to show cause why they should not be compelled to comply with the Commission's July 31 investigative subpoenas. The hearing is December 14 at 10 a.m. Eastern, IAS Part 57, 60 Centre Street, Room 218. Opposition is due December 7, replies December 11, and service November 6. That order schedules consideration; it does not itself compel compliance or decide the legality of Kalshi's contracts. The petition was received October 22. This is separate from Kalshi's federal challenge. Complete transfer letters, the complete petition and proof of service remain unverified.
| New York | October 29, 2026 | Commercial Division transfer requested and opposed October 29; December 14 subpoena hearing remains scheduled | Sources› |
Derek Brown v. Kalshi Inc. et al.State · Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake County, UtahOn October 29, Daniel Wallach reported Utah's motion for a preliminary injunction in its state enforcement lawsuit against Kalshi entities and two Susquehanna entities. The reproduced motion cover matches the parties, identifies case 260908356 and names Judge Amanda Montague. Only the cover was obtained; the exact filing date and full motion terms remain unverified. Wallach reports that Utah seeks restrictions on politics, elections, culture, sports and mentions contracts, with geofencing and account restrictions; those details are attributed reporting, not terms independently confirmed from the motion. The October 20 complaint already sought preliminary and permanent injunctions, restitution, damages and disgorgement. Utah's allegations and requested relief are not court findings. No injunction or removal to federal court has been verified. This remains separate from KalshiEX LLC v. Cox and the later criminal information.
| Utah | October 29, 2026 | Preliminary-injunction motion reported; reproduced cover verified, no injunction verified | Sources› |
State of Utah v. KalshiEX, LLC, Tarek Mansour and Luana Lopes LaraState · Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake Department, Salt Lake County, UtahOctober 28, 2026: Utah filed criminal information naming KalshiEX, LLC and co-defendants Tarek Mansour and Luana Lopes Lara. The information sets out 14 counts: one second-degree felony for a pattern of unlawful activity, 12 third-degree felony online-gambling-promotion counts and one class A misdemeanor general-gambling-promotion count. The probable-cause declaration alleges an undercover Utah agent placed sports transactions while confirming his Utah location. These are prosecutors' allegations, not judicial findings or convictions. The information is signed and authorized for filing October 28; FOX 13 and KSL independently report the filing that day. The public PDF's court case-number fields are blank; its AGO No. 9465862 is not a court docket. No new injunction or platform shutdown is established by the charging document. This is separate from Utah's October 20 civil lawsuit.
| Utah | October 28, 2026 | Criminal information filed; charges alleged, no conviction or new injunction verified | Sources› |
KalshiEX LLC v. Bird et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court, Southern District of IowaOctober 28, 2026: the Eighth Circuit granted Kalshi's motion to extend the deadline for its brief and appendix to December 7, 2026, in No. 26-2874. The complete reproduced order identifies the underlying Southern District of Iowa case as 4:26-cv-00109-SHL. Kalshi appealed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief on September 15. The extension is a briefing order, not a stay, reversal or merits decision.
| Iowa | October 28, 2026 | Appeal pending; brief and appendix deadline extended to December 7, 2026 | Sources› |
KalshiEX LLC v. CoxPlatform challenge · State · U.S. District Court, District of UtahOctober 28, 2026: Document 42 was filed in Tenth Circuit appeal 26-4100. Its reproduced court-stamped page 4 lists 37 states, the District of Columbia and the Northern Mariana Islands as amici curiae. Daniel Wallach reports that the brief supports Utah against Kalshi. Only the list-of-amici page was recovered; the brief's arguments were not independently read. This is a party-side filing, not a new appellate ruling or injunction. The existing district-court enforcement-permitted posture is unchanged.
| Utah | October 28, 2026 | Enforcement permitted; state amici file in pending Tenth Circuit appeal | Sources› |
KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler et al.Federal · Platform challenge · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (from S.D. Ohio)On September 25, 2026, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the Ohio district court's denial of Kalshi's preliminary-injunction motion in consolidated appeals Nos. 26-3196 and 26-5235. Kalshi filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on October 9 (No. 26-3196, Document 92). On October 28, the court directed counsel for Ohio and Tennessee to respond by close of business November 12, 2026, limited to 3,900 words, with no extensions (Document 95). The response request does not grant rehearing or overturn the September 25 decision.
| Ohio | October 28, 2026 | Rehearing petition pending; Sixth Circuit directs response by November 12, with no extensions | Sources› |
KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee; on appeal to the Sixth CircuitOn September 25, 2026, the Sixth Circuit vacated the Tennessee district court's grant of Kalshi's preliminary-injunction motion and remanded in consolidated appeals Nos. 26-3196 and 26-5235. Kalshi filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on October 9 (No. 26-3196, Document 92), covering both appeals. On October 28, the court directed counsel for Ohio and Tennessee to respond by close of business November 12, 2026, limited to 3,900 words, with no extensions (Document 95). The response request does not grant rehearing or reinstate the Tennessee injunction.
| Tennessee | October 28, 2026 | Rehearing petition pending; Sixth Circuit directs response by November 12, with no extensions | Sources› |
KalshiEX LLC v. Hanaway et al.Federal · Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of MissouriOn October 27, 2026, KalshiEX LLC filed a federal complaint against Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, the Missouri Gaming Commission and commission officials, E.D. Mo. No. 4:26-cv-01860, ECF 1. The official court entry and court-stamped first page verify the filing, caption and defendants. This is a separate lawsuit from Ludlow Exchange/Novig's and Nadex's Missouri cases. The full 39-page complaint and any later substantive orders were not obtained; no injunction, geofencing directive or merits ruling is established by the complaint entry.
| Missouri | October 27, 2026 | Complaint filed; no injunction or merits ruling verified | Sources› |
Missouri attorney general prediction-market cease-and-desist lettersState · Missouri Attorney GeneralOn Sept. 16–17, 2026, the attorney general directed six operators to comply with Missouri sports-wagering licensing, tax and age rules or cease Missouri sports-event contracts, with confirmation due within 30 days. Ludlow Exchange, LLC d/b/a Novig filed its federal challenge on October 16, E.D. Mo. 4:26-cv-01780. KalshiEX LLC filed a separate complaint against Missouri officials on October 27, E.D. Mo. 4:26-cv-01860, ECF 1. These lawsuits are tracked separately; filing a complaint does not establish that relief was granted. Compliance, withdrawal and any adjudicatory ruling have not been verified in this update.
| Missouri | October 27, 2026 | Cease-and-desist letters issued; Novig and Kalshi federal challenges tracked separately | Sources› |
North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. v. Brown et al.Federal · Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central DivisionOctober 26, 2026: North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc., doing business as OG.com Prediction Markets, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against Utah Attorney General Derek Brown and three other Utah officials in their official capacities. Reproduced court-stamped page 1 of the 40-page complaint identifies the case as 2:26-cv-01056-DBB, Document 1, filed October 26. Mick Bransfield reported the lawsuit on October 27 as a Crypto.com development; the caption names Nadex/OG as the plaintiff. This is separate from the United States and CFTC's Utah suit, No.2:26-cv-01055, and the existing Kalshi proceedings. Only the complaint's first page has been reviewed; its detailed allegations and any later ruling or injunction have not been verified.
| Utah | October 26, 2026 | Complaint filed seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; no ruling verified | Sources› |
United States and CFTC v. Commonwealth of Kentucky et al.Federal · U.S. District Court (Kentucky)October 26, 2026: Judge S. Chad Meredith signed an order rescheduling oral argument for December 18, 2026, at 9 a.m. at the United States Courthouse in Lexington, Kentucky. The hearing concerns the pending motions to dismiss (Documents 38 and 40), motions for summary judgment (Documents 39 and 41), and supplemental briefs (Documents 70–72). The public docket identifies the scheduling order as Document 73. This is a scheduling decision, not a merits ruling. On October 23, Kentucky defendants, Coalition for Fair Markets, and the CFTC and United States filed supplemental memoranda pursuant to the October 5 order; their full briefs have not been reviewed. The October 5 order canceled the October 9 argument and directed briefing on the Sixth Circuit's Schuler decision and the effect, if any, of forthcoming CFTC rulemaking. The federal plaintiffs also filed an October 5 supplemental-authority notice citing Coinbase v. Raoul (Document 68).
| Kentucky | October 26, 2026 | Oral argument rescheduled for December 18, 2026, at 9 a.m. Eastern in Lexington | Sources› |
Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Campbell et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the District of MassachusettsOctober 25, 2026: The First Circuit's official calendar order lists No.26-1257, Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Andrea J. Campbell et al., for the November 4 Boston sitting, with cases called at 9:30 a.m. in the Court of Appeals Panel Courtroom, seventh floor. Each side is allotted 15 minutes. The original September 17 calendaring notice, reproduced by Daniel Wallach on October 27, identifies the Moakley Courthouse and provides for public live audio and recordings after the day's arguments. October 27 is the social-report date, not the date the court first scheduled argument. These records establish a hearing, not a merits decision or a new restriction on trading.
| Massachusetts | October 25, 2026 | First Circuit oral argument scheduled for November 4, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. Eastern in Boston | Sources› |
KalshiEX LLC v. Murrill et al.Federal · Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the Western District of LouisianaKalshiEX LLC filed a complaint against Louisiana officials and agencies in the Western District of Louisiana on October 23, 2026. The reproduced first page of Document 1 bears case number 1:26-cv-04476, the October 23 filing stamp and the title 'Complaint for Permanent Injunctive and Declaratory Relief.' The visible caption names Attorney General Liz Murrill, Gaming Division Director Dawn Himel, Governor Jeff Landry, the Louisiana Gaming Control Board and other officials. Daniel Wallach reported the suit October 24 and described Kalshi's allegation of imminent state enforcement; that is the plaintiff's position, not a court finding. Only page 1 of 34 was reviewed. No injunction, merits ruling or change to customer access has been verified.
| Louisiana | October 23, 2026 | Complaint filed seeking permanent injunctive and declaratory relief; no ruling verified | Sources› |
United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of New York et al.Federal · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkOn October 13, 2026, Judge Lorna G. Schofield permitted supplemental notices concerning the CFTC's October 9 interim final rule and proposed rule. The signed endorsement on page 1 of ECF 177 permits one notice regarding each rule, neither exceeding 350 words, by October 16; defendants may respond, not exceeding 350 words, by October 23. The case-specific docket feed records notices ECF 178/179 filed October 16 and letters ECF 180/181 filed October 23. Reproduced court-stamped page 1 of ECF 180 identifies New York defendants' response to plaintiffs' ECF 178 letter about the interim final rule. New York argues that the rule's rushed promulgation without a comment period raises validity problems and that it has no persuasive or evidentiary value on the pending motion; it also disputes the distinction between sportsbooks and other event contracts. These are defendants' arguments, not court findings. Only page 1 of the two-page letter was reviewed; ECF 181's author and contents remain unverified. No preliminary injunction or merits ruling is established by these submissions. The court previously heard argument on the preliminary-injunction motion on September 14. Page 2 of ECF 177 and full notice attachments remain unreviewed.
| New York | October 23, 2026 | Preliminary-injunction motion pending; New York's October 23 rule-response letter verified in part | Sources› |
QCX LLC v. Wilson et al.Federal · Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of OhioQCX LLC, doing business as Polymarket US, filed its complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on October 16, 2026 (ECF 1). It alleges that Ohio's sports-gaming licensing requirements discriminate against interstate commerce and are preempted by the Commodity Exchange Act. The complaint seeks declaratory relief, preliminary and permanent injunctions, and attorneys' fees and costs; those requests are not court findings or relief granted. Exhibit 1 reproduces an October 2 Ohio Casino Control Commission cease-and-desist letter addressed to PM US Tech (QC Tech LLC), demanding an immediate halt to sports-event contracts in Ohio and a written compliance response within 14 days. The complaint expressly notes the addressee differs from QCX LLC. Official court entries record summons and appearances on October 19 and a related-case memorandum (ECF 8) on October 21. Reproduced page 1 of that two-page memorandum identifies KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler, No. 2:25-cv-01165, before Judge Morrison, as an alleged related case reflected on QCX's civil cover sheet. Its court stamp reads 2:26-cv-01502-SDM-CMV. Page 2 and any signed reassignment directive have not been obtained. Wallach's characterization of the reassignment as a major setback is commentary, not a court finding. No injunction or merits ruling has been verified.
| Ohio | October 21, 2026 | Related-case memorandum identifies Kalshi action; no injunction or merits ruling verified | Sources› |
Blue Lake Rancheria et al. v. KalshiEX LLC et al.Tribal · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; on appeal to the Ninth CircuitOctober 21, 2026: Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ordered the parties to meet and confer about a potential geofencing stipulation that would remain in effect until further court order. The signed order does not impose a geofence or establish that the parties agreed to one. It grants leave to amend, including to add a plaintiff, with an amended complaint due November 4, and terminates defendants' pending dismissal motions (Dkts. 67 and 68) without prejudice. A further case-management conference is set for November 4 at 2 p.m. Pacific; an updated joint statement addressing the stipulation discussions is due November 3 at noon. The official court calendar independently confirms the conference. This is a case-management order, not a new merits ruling or trading ban. September 16, 2026: The Ninth Circuit reversed the IGRA portion of the preliminary-injunction denial, holding that the tribes are likely to succeed in showing Kalshi's sports-event contracts violate IGRA when offered on tribal lands. That appellate decision did not itself issue an injunction; the remaining preliminary-injunction factors return to the district court.
| California | October 21, 2026 | Geofencing discussions ordered; amendment permitted; November 4 case-management conference set | Sources› |
Ohio Casino Control Commission notice to sports gaming and fantasy contest licensees and applicantsState · Ohio Casino Control CommissionIn a signed October 20, 2026 notice, the Ohio Casino Control Commission tells sports gaming and fantasy contest licensees and applicants to immediately stop facilitating, supporting or providing services to entities offering sports-event contracts to people located in Ohio without an Ohio sports-gaming license. Covered services include market making, liquidity, integrity monitoring, data, platform, technology and security services. Licensees must notify the Commission of compliance by October 30 and preserve supporting records. The notice warns that noncompliance may trigger reopened suitability investigations and possible license denial, nonrenewal, suspension, revocation or other administrative action. Its footnote says licensed futures commission merchants and introducing brokers comply if they do not allow Ohio customers direct or indirect access to sports-event contracts on designated contract markets. This is an agency notice, not a court injunction or a finding that a named licensee has violated the law. It does not itself establish that any license has been revoked or a particular app has stopped trading. It is distinct from the Commission's October 2 cease-and-desist letters to prediction-market operators.
| Ohio | October 20, 2026 | Licensees told to stop supporting unlicensed Ohio sports-event contracts; compliance responses due October 30 | Sources› |
North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. v. Hanaway et al.Federal · Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the Western District of MissouriNorth American Derivatives Exchange, Inc., doing business as OG.com Prediction Markets, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against Missouri Attorney General Catherine L. Hanaway and Missouri Gaming Commission officials on October 16, 2026. Wallach reports that the challenge concerns state enforcement against sports prediction markets. The official court feed confirms the case caption and docket; reproduced court-stamped page 1 of 39 confirms the filing date, parties and relief sought. This is a separate Western District case from Novig's Eastern District lawsuit. Filing the complaint does not establish that any injunction or other relief was granted. Full complaint text and later substantive orders have not been verified.
| Missouri | October 16, 2026 | Complaint filed seeking declaratory and injunctive relief | Sources› |
Ludlow Exchange, LLC v. Hanaway et al.Federal · Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of MissouriLudlow Exchange, LLC, doing business as Novig, filed a complaint on October 16, 2026 against Missouri Attorney General Catherine L. Hanaway and Missouri Gaming Commission officials Michael A. Lear and Jan M. Zimmerman in their official capacities. The reproduced first page of the court-stamped complaint seeks to prevent enforcement of Missouri gambling and sports-wagering laws against its event contracts, alleging that federal law places the transactions within the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction. These are Novig's allegations, not court findings. The district court's public docket feed confirms the complaint as ECF 1 and also lists an appearance and organizational disclosure. No injunction or ruling is established by the materials checked.
| Missouri | October 16, 2026 | Complaint filed seeking declaratory and injunctive relief | Sources› |
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. et al. v. Skrmetti et al.Federal · Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville DivisionOctober 13, 2026: Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. and UDM, LLC d/b/a Underdog Predict sued Tennessee officials, seeking a declaration that federal commodities law preempts state gambling-law enforcement against their event contracts and a permanent injunction. The complaint quotes an October 9 Sports Wagering Council letter demanding an immediate stop to Tennessee sports event contracts and threatening penalties, law-enforcement referral and the separate affiliate's fantasy sports license. These are the plaintiffs' allegations and requested remedies, not court findings or granted relief. The docket summary of Chief Judge William L. Campbell Jr.'s October 14 order (ECF 9) refers the case to a magistrate judge for case management; it reports no merits ruling. ECF 8 sets an initial telephone case-management conference for January 28, 2027 at 2 p.m. The signed ECF 9 PDF has not been reviewed.
| Tennessee | October 14, 2026 | Relief requested; case referred for magistrate-judge case management | Sources› |
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. QCX LLC et al.State · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of KentuckyOctober 14, 2026: Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins recommended granting Kentucky's motion to remand the case to Franklin Circuit Court. This is a report and recommendation, not a final remand order; District Judge Claria Horn Boom has not yet adopted or rejected it. Polymarket removed the state enforcement case to federal court on June 18.
| Kentucky | October 14, 2026 | Magistrate judge recommended remand; district judge has not ruled | Sources› |
KalshiEX LLC v. MartinPlatform challenge · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (from D. Md.)On October 14, 2026, Maryland officials filed a supplemental-authority letter in Fourth Circuit No. 25-1892, Doc. 132-1, citing the Sixth Circuit's September 25 decision in KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler. The letter argues that sports-event contracts are not swaps and that the Commodity Exchange Act does not expressly or implicitly preempt state gambling laws. These are Maryland's arguments about the Sixth Circuit decision, not a new Fourth Circuit ruling. On September 9, Maryland and Kalshi filed opposing Rule 28(j) letters addressing the Ninth Circuit's KalshiEX LLC v. Assad decision. Maryland argued that Assad supported affirmance; Kalshi argued it was nonbinding, misread the Act and would be undermined by the CFTC's proposed event-contract rule.
| Maryland | October 14, 2026 | Appeal pending; Maryland filed supplemental authority citing Sixth Circuit decision | Sources› |
Tennessee Sports Wagering Council cease-and-desist orderState · Administrative — Tennessee Sports Wagering CouncilSeptember 25, 2026: In KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel, the Sixth Circuit panel vacated the Middle District of Tennessee's preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings. On October 9, Kalshi filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in the linked Ohio and Tennessee appeals, Nos. 26-3196 and 26-5235. The petition requests reconsideration; it is not an order granting rehearing or a new injunction. The panel opinion and filed petition do not by themselves establish the current mandate or any later stay, which have not been independently verified here. This administrative record concerns the Tennessee Sports Wagering Council's January cease-and-desist action against Kalshi, not a new October action.
| Tennessee | October 9, 2026 | Cease-and-desist challenged; panel vacated preliminary injunction; rehearing petition filed | Sources› |
United States and CFTC v. State of New Mexico et al.Federal · U.S. District Court, District of New MexicoThe October 6, 2026 text-only notice (ECF 40) sets a remote status conference for November 10 at 1:30 p.m. Mountain before Chief District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales to discuss scheduling a motions hearing. This is a scheduling conference, not the motions hearing itself. The docket also records the federal plaintiffs' October 8 notice of supplemental authority concerning their preliminary-injunction motion (ECF 41) and New Mexico's October 9 response (ECF 42). The preliminary-injunction and dismissal motions remain pending in the reviewed docket; these entries do not grant relief or decide the merits.
| New Mexico | October 9, 2026 | Motions pending; November 10 scheduling conference set | Sources› |
Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. v. Nessel et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of MichiganOctober 7, 2026: The Michigan Gaming Control Board announced that Coinbase Financial Markets agreed to stop offering new sports-related event contracts to Michigan customers and close remaining customer positions by 12:00 a.m. Eastern on October 10. MGCB says the stipulation covers contracts traded on KalshiEX and other designated contract markets; Michigan agreed to forbear from enforcement while Coinbase complies and related appeals proceed. The agency says Coinbase's appeal remains pending and stayed pending related Sixth Circuit appeals. The stipulation does not resolve the merits or waive the parties' positions. These terms are attributed to MGCB's announcement; the underlying stipulation and actual compliance have not been independently verified.
| Michigan | October 7, 2026 | Michigan sports-contract halt agreed; underlying appeal remains pending | Sources› |
New Mexico v. Kalshi, Inc. et al.State · U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico (removed state action)The October 6, 2026 text-only notice (ECF 44) sets a remote status conference for November 10 at 1:30 p.m. Mountain before Chief District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales to discuss scheduling a motions hearing. This is a scheduling conference, not the motions hearing itself. The docket records completion of briefing on New Mexico's motion to remand on August 18. The notice does not decide remand, grant an injunction or resolve the merits. This is the state's removed action, separate from the Mescalero tribal lawsuit.
| New Mexico | October 6, 2026 | Remand motion pending; November 10 scheduling conference set | Sources› |
Connecticut DCP prediction-market cease-and-desist ordersState · Connecticut Department of Consumer ProtectionOctober 5, 2026 — Connecticut officials told Hearst Connecticut Media that Gemini and Webull had withdrawn services following DCP's September cease-and-desist orders; the report was published October 6. Exact withdrawal dates and scope were not provided. The report also named ProphetX, but Mick Bransfield subsequently disputed that claim; ProphetX's withdrawal is not independently confirmed. This is a reported compliance update, not a new court ruling or settlement. September 12, 2026 — Published excerpts of a Connecticut DCP subpoena signed September 9 seek media records concerning Connecticut-directed prediction-market advertising from January 1, 2025 onward, including contracts, advertisements, run logs, audience reports, legal representations, targeting instructions and sponsorships. The excerpts do not establish that recipients are under investigation or provide the complete recipient list.
| Connecticut | October 5, 2026 | Gemini and Webull withdrawals reported; ProphetX withdrawal disputed | Sources› |
QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US v. James et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkSeptember 30, 2026: Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the parties in both related cases to confer and submit a joint letter within seven days addressing an initial status conference or a stay pending related Second Circuit appeals: KalshiEX LLC v. Williams (No. 26-1835), KalshiEX LLC v. Cafferelli (No. 26-2239), and Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. v. Tong (No. 26-2297). The order did not grant a stay or decide the merits. Polymarket US filed this separate federal complaint on September 24 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against New York officials.
| New York | September 30, 2026 | Joint letter ordered; no stay or merits ruling | Sources› |
Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York on behalf of the People of the State of New York v. QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket USState · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkSeptember 30, 2026: Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the parties in both related cases to confer and submit a joint letter within seven days addressing an initial status conference or a stay pending related Second Circuit appeals. The order did not grant a stay or decide the merits. New York filed its civil enforcement petition on September 24, alleging violations of state gambling law; Polymarket US removed that action to federal court.
| New York | September 30, 2026 | Joint letter ordered; no stay or merits ruling | Sources› |
Dana Nessel, Michigan Attorney General, on behalf of the People of Michigan and the Michigan Gaming Control Board v. KalshiEX LLCState · Michigan state court (remanded from federal court)September 29, 2026: Michigan filed an ex-parte motion to have KalshiEX held in civil contempt under MCR 3.606, according to reproduced docket event 54. State Affairs reported October 14 that the motion alleges continued sports-contract marketing to Michigan residents after the September 1 injunction. Those are allegations, not a contempt finding. Checked October 23, the official Ingham County court calendar lists a November 24, 2026 show-cause hearing at 3:30 p.m. local time in CR05 before Judge Rosemarie Aquilina, matching KalshiEX LLC and Dana Nessel in case 2026-0000001087-CZ. The calendar verifies the scheduled event, not the signed scheduling order, its issuance date or the full contempt motion, which remain unavailable. The signed September 1 order restricts Kalshi from offering or facilitating products constituting internet sports betting to people located in Michigan and prohibits marketing those products to Michigan residents. It requires a Michigan-licensed third-party geolocation provider, notice to relevant futures commission merchants within three business days and a $500,000-per-day fine for each day the court finds noncompliance with its geolocation requirements. The contempt request does not establish that such fines have been imposed. The order remains effective until a final order is issued. Sixth Circuit No. 26-1639, arising from the June 25 remand order, remains separately docketed.
| Michigan | September 29, 2026 | Civil-contempt motion pending; November 24 show-cause hearing on official court calendar | Sources› |
KalshiEX LLC v. Knudsen et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the District of MontanaDismissed by stipulation; the court entered its Order Dismissing Case (Doc. 36) on September 21, 2026. Kalshi dropped its claims; Montana gambling regulators agreed not to enforce against its event contracts, with 30 days’ notice before any future action. Montana Lottery Commission claims dismissed with prejudice; Attorney General claims dismissed without prejudice.
| Montana | September 21, 2026 | Dismissed by joint stipulation (court order entered) | Sources› |
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. et al. v. Brown et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the Western District of WashingtonSeptember 14, 2026 — Judge Robert Lasnik recused, and the case was reassigned to Judge Thomas Zilly. No merits ruling has issued.
| Washington | September 14, 2026 | Filed — relief not granted | Sources› |
United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Arizona et al.Federal · U.S. District Court, District of ArizonaSeptember 14, 2026 — Arizona filed a motion asking the Ninth Circuit to summarily vacate the preliminary injunction as to sports-event contracts and remand the election-contract issues. The court has not ruled.
| Arizona | September 14, 2026 | Preliminary injunction; summary disposition request pending | Sources› |
North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. v. State of Nevada et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the District of NevadaSeptember 11, 2026 — Daniel Wallach reported that North American Derivatives Exchange filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s Nevada sports-event-contract ruling. The Supreme Court has not granted review, and no public Supreme Court docket number had been confirmed when checked.
| Nevada | September 11, 2026 | Certiorari petition reported — review not granted | Sources› |
United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Connecticut et al.Federal · U.S. District Court, District of ConnecticutSept. 11, 2026 — Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. Robinhood filed notice supporting its pending, unopposed motion to intervene. Neither request has been granted.
| Connecticut | September 11, 2026 | Preliminary injunction and intervention motions pending | Sources› |
Moran v. KalshiEX LLC et al.Federal · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria DivisionMoran alleges Kalshi improperly disciplined him for trading on his own candidacy. The complaint seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief; no merits ruling has been entered.
| Virginia | September 10, 2026 | Filed — relief not granted | Sources› |
Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Dreitzer et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the District of NevadaSeptember 9, 2026 — Robinhood Derivatives filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling concerning Nevada regulation of sports-event contracts. The Supreme Court has not agreed to hear the case, and its public docket had not yet assigned a case number when checked September 10.
| Nevada | September 9, 2026 | Certiorari petition filed — review not granted | Sources› |
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. et al. v. Campbell et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the District of MassachusettsSeptember 8, 2026 — Underdog Exchange DCM and UDM, doing business as Underdog Predict, filed this federal action seeking declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against state enforcement of gambling laws over its event-contract business. The complaint asserts Commodity Exchange Act preemption; the court has not decided that claim or granted an injunction.
| Massachusetts | September 8, 2026 | Filed — relief not granted | Sources› |
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. et al. v. Torrez et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the District of New MexicoSeptember 8, 2026 — Underdog Exchange DCM and UDM, doing business as Underdog Predict, filed this federal action seeking declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against state enforcement of gambling laws over its event-contract business. The complaint asserts Commodity Exchange Act preemption; the court has not decided that claim or granted an injunction.
| New Mexico | September 8, 2026 | Filed — relief not granted | Sources› |
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. et al. v. Wilson et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of OhioSeptember 8, 2026 — Underdog Exchange DCM and UDM, doing business as Underdog Predict, filed this federal action seeking declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against state enforcement of gambling laws over its event-contract business. The complaint asserts Commodity Exchange Act preemption; the court has not decided that claim or granted an injunction.
| Ohio | September 8, 2026 | Filed — relief not granted | Sources› |
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. et al. v. Kaul et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the Western District of WisconsinSeptember 8, 2026 — Underdog Exchange DCM and UDM, doing business as Underdog Predict, filed this federal action seeking declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against state enforcement of gambling laws over its event-contract business. The complaint asserts Commodity Exchange Act preemption; the court has not decided that claim or granted an injunction.
| Wisconsin | September 8, 2026 | Filed — relief not granted | Sources› |
Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Nessel et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the Western District of MichiganSeptember 4, 2026 — Judge Paul L. Maloney entered the parties’ stipulation requiring Robinhood to cease offering new sports-related event contracts to Michigan customers by September 9 and close remaining Michigan customer positions by October 9. Michigan officials agreed to forbear from sports-event-contract enforcement against Robinhood while it complies. The arrangement remains in place pending final resolution of the specified Sixth Circuit appeals, including any Supreme Court proceedings, or dissolution of the state-court injunction in Nessel v. KalshiEX LLC. The stipulation is without prejudice and does not decide the merits.
| Michigan | September 4, 2026 | On appeal — michigan sports contracts paused by stipulation/order | Sources› |
Pernas v. KalshiEX LLCFederal · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkAugust 31, 2026 — Nicolas Pernas alleged that Kalshi improperly resolved the KXWLEADER-25-JT “Who will Trump meet with in 2025?” Justin Trudeau contract in the negative, canceled resting orders and restricted his ability to withdraw approximately $25,000 in liquid cash. The complaint asserts contract, Commodity Exchange Act, misrepresentation, fraud and New York consumer-protection claims; these are allegations, not findings. Judge Margaret M. Garnett denied the plaintiff’s same-day temporary-restraining-order request, and the underlying case remains pending.
| New York | August 31, 2026 | Tro denied; case pending | Sources› |
State of Connecticut v. KalshiEX LLC et al.State · Connecticut Superior Court / U.S. District Court for the District of ConnecticutAugust 31, 2026 — the removed federal action was reassigned from Judge Sarala V. Nagala to Judge Vernon D. Oliver for all further proceedings. The reassignment order did not decide the pending remand issue.
| Connecticut | August 31, 2026 | Removed — reassigned in federal court | Sources› |
Ohio Casino Control Commission administrative action against KalshiState · Ohio Casino Control Commission; U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth CircuitAugust 31, 2026 — Ohio appellees filed a Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) letter in the consolidated Sixth Circuit appeals identifying the Ninth Circuit’s August 25 decision in KalshiEX LLC v. Assad as supplemental authority. The letter presents Ohio’s argument that Assad supports affirmance; it did not decide the appeal.
| Ohio | August 31, 2026 | Appeal pending — supplemental authority filed | Sources› |
Nevada Gaming Control Board v. Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc.State · First Judicial District Court of Nevada— originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Nevada | August 28, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. v. Ford et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada— originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Nevada | August 28, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
Warga v. Winklevoss et al.Federal · Class action · Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada— originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Nevada | August 28, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Flaherty et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey— originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| New Jersey | August 28, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. v. Martin et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland— originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Maryland | August 28, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
KalshiEX LLC v. Morrison et al.Platform challenge · Franklin County Court of Common Pleas— originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Ohio | August 28, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
Ludlow Exchange LLC v. Campbell et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts— originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Massachusetts | August 28, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
Ludlow Exchange LLC v. James et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York— originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| New York | August 28, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
Brown v. Kalshi, Inc.Federal · Class action · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington— originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Washington | August 28, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
Ludlow Exchange LLC v. Brown et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington— originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Washington | August 28, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
State of Wisconsin v. Blockratize, Inc. et al.State · Wisconsin Circuit Court / U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin— originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Wisconsin | August 28, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
State of Wisconsin v. Foris Dax Markets, Inc.State · Wisconsin Circuit Court / U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin— originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Wisconsin | August 28, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
Ludlow Exchange LLC v. Kaul et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin— originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Wisconsin | August 28, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
Ludlow Exchange LLC v. Torrez et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico— originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| New Mexico | August 28, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
The State of Rhode Island, by and through Attorney General Peter F. Neronha v. KalshiEX LLC and QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket USPlatform challenge · State · U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island; Rhode Island state courtAugust 28, 2026 — Rhode Island defendants filed a notice citing the Ninth Circuit’s decision in KalshiEX LLC v. Assad, No. 25-7516, as supplemental authority in the consolidated cases. The preliminary-injunction motions, argued August 3, remain under advisement.
| Rhode Island | August 28, 2026 | Pi motions pending — supplemental authority filed | Sources› |
KalshiEX LLC v. Furcolo et al.Federal · Platform challenge · U.S. District Court, District of Rhode IslandAugust 28, 2026 — Rhode Island defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority in the lead case, citing the Ninth Circuit’s decision in KalshiEX LLC v. Assad, No. 25-7516. The notice also applies to the consolidated state case; the preliminary-injunction motions remain pending.
| Rhode Island | August 28, 2026 | Pi motions pending — supplemental authority filed | Sources› |
North American Derivatives Exchange Inc. v. BrownPlatform challenge · U.S. District Court (Washington)2026-08-26: Case reassigned to U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour. The parties filed a stipulation and proposed order concerning enforcement on August 18, but the docket through August 26 does not show an entered stay order.
| Washington | August 26, 2026 | Pending | Sources› |
Mescalero Apache Tribe, Pueblo of Isleta, Pueblo of Pojoaque, and Pueblo of Sandia v. Kalshi, Inc. and KalshiEX, LLCTribal · U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico2026-08-26: The court set a consolidated hearing for September 23, 2026 on defendants' motion to dismiss and plaintiffs' preliminary-injunction motion.
| New Mexico | August 26, 2026 | Pending | Sources› |
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Michele SpagnuoloFederal · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New YorkNo disposition identified through August 26, 2026
| New York | August 26, 2026 | Pending | Sources› |
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. KalshiEX LLCFederal · State · Massachusetts state court; parallel federal action D. Mass.; Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court2026-08-24 — a related federal court stayed Ludlow Exchange LLC v. Campbell pending the SJC's decision in SJC-13906, confirming that the Kalshi appeal remained pending without an SJC merits decision.
| Massachusetts | August 24, 2026 | Injunction stayed pending appeal | Sources› |
United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Minnesota et al.Federal · U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota2026-08-18: Notice and Order for Pretrial Conference entered as ECF No. 87; Rule 16 conference set for 2026-10-13. The 2026-07-27 preliminary injunction remains operative pending a final merits decision.
| Minnesota | August 18, 2026 | Preliminary injunction granted | Sources› |
KalshiEX LLC v. Keith Ellison, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Minnesota, et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota2026-08-18: Order/Notice of Hearing/Deadlines entered as ECF No. 62 for the Rule 16 pretrial conference. The 2026-07-27 preliminary injunction remains operative pending a final merits decision.
| Minnesota | August 18, 2026 | Preliminary injunction granted | Sources› |
QCX LLC, doing business as Polymarket US v. Keith Ellison, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Minnesota, et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota2026-08-18: Order/Notice of Hearing/Deadlines entered as ECF No. 59 for the Rule 16 pretrial conference. The 2026-07-27 preliminary injunction remains operative pending a final merits decision.
| Minnesota | August 18, 2026 | Preliminary injunction granted | Sources› |
City of Baltimore ex rel. Ebony Thompson v. KalshiEX LLC et al.State · Circuit Court for Baltimore CityAugust 13, 2026
| Maryland | August 13, 2026 | Filed | Sources› |
City of Baltimore ex rel. Ebony Thompson v. QCX LLC et al.State · Circuit Court for Baltimore CityAugust 2026
| Maryland | August 13, 2026 | Filed | Sources› |
In the Matter of KalshiEX LLC’s Notice Regarding Market Emergency DeclarationFederal · Administrative — CFTC2026-08-11: CFTC directed Kalshi to continue performing its DCM functions under CEA §8a(9).
| New York | August 11, 2026 | Order in effect | Sources› |
FlightAware LLC v. Kalshi Inc. et al.Federal · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkAugust 11, 2026 — FlightAware voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice.
| New York | August 11, 2026 | Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice | Sources› |
People of the State of New York, by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York v. Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc.State · New York state court2026-08-10 — the federal court rescheduled the initial conference to August 31; the remand motion remained pending.
| New York | August 10, 2026 | Pending | Sources› |
Coalition for Fair Markets v. Kentucky Department of RevenuePlatform challenge · Franklin Circuit Court, Kentucky2026-08-10 — the federal court accepted Coalition for Fair Markets' complaint in intervention in No. 3:26-cv-00049; a joint scheduling motion followed on August 20.
| Kentucky | August 10, 2026 | Pending | Sources› |
State of Wisconsin v. Kalshi, Inc., KalshiEX LLC, Kalshi Klear Inc., Kalshi Klear LLC, Kalshi Trading LLC, Coinbase entities, and Robinhood entitiesState · Wisconsin Circuit Court; removed to W.D. Wisconsin2026-08-07 — reply brief and supporting declaration were filed in the preliminary-injunction proceedings; no merits ruling was shown through August 26.
| Wisconsin | August 7, 2026 | Preliminary injunction motion pending | Sources› |
QCX, LLC v. Nessel et al.; on appeal, QCX, LLC v. Dana NesselPlatform challenge · U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan; on appeal to the Sixth Circuit2026-08-05: The district court stayed its proceedings pending appeal and adjourned the Rule 16 conference. The Sixth Circuit had denied expedited/consolidated treatment on July 2 and ordered the appeal to proceed in the normal course.
| Michigan | August 5, 2026 | On appeal | Sources› |
Connecticut cease-and-desist orders to prediction market platformsState · Administrative — Dept. of Consumer Protection, Gaming DivisionAugust 2026
| Connecticut | August 1, 2026 | Cease-and-desist — enforcement enjoined | Sources› |
In the Matter of George Anthony Devolder SantosFederal · Commodity Futures Trading CommissionJuly 31, 2026
| Federal | July 31, 2026 | Resolved — disgorgement, civil penalty, cease-and-desist order and three-year trading ban | Sources› |
Azar Barrionuevo v. Adventure One QSS, Inc.Federal · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of IllinoisJuly 31, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Illinois | July 31, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
State of Washington v. KalshiEX LLCState · King County Superior Court, Washington; removed action in W.D. Washington2026-07-16 — Ninth Circuit stayed briefing pending mandates in Nos. 25-7187, 25-7516, and 25-7831.
| Washington | July 16, 2026 | Final enforcement order | Sources› |
In the Matter of KalshiEX LLC’s Notice Regarding Market Emergency Declaration and Emergency Rule Filing Pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.6(a)Federal · Administrative — CFTC2026-07-14: CFTC stayed Kalshi’s emergency rule and directed it to fulfill open trades involving Michigan residents.
| Michigan | July 14, 2026 | Order in effect | Sources› |
Vazquez et al. v. Kalshi Inc. et al.Federal · Class action · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkJuly 9, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| New York | July 9, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
Wood et al. v. Adventure One QSS, Inc. et al.State · Supreme Court of New York, New York CountyJuly 6, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| New York | July 6, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US v. Raúl Torrez et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court, District of New MexicoJuly 5, 2026
| New Mexico | July 5, 2026 | Pending | Sources› |
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Gannon Ken Van DykeFederal · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New YorkJuly 1, 2026
| New York | July 1, 2026 | Pending; dismissal challenge reported | Sources› |
National Association of Consumer Advocates v. Adventure One QSS, Inc. et al.State · Superior Court of the District of ColumbiaJune 26, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| District of Columbia | June 26, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
Kentucky v. KalshiEX LLC et al.State · Franklin Circuit Court, KentuckyJune 17, 2026
| Kentucky | June 17, 2026 | Pending | Sources› |
Austin et al. v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al.Federal · Class action · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CaliforniaJune 17, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| California | June 17, 2026 | Consolidated into Chehal | Sources› |
Nevada ex rel. Gaming Control Board v. KalshiEX LLCState · First Judicial District Court, Carson City, Nevada (Judge Jason Woodbury)June 15, 2026
| Nevada | June 15, 2026 | Preliminary injunction granted | Sources› |
James v. Kalshi, Inc. et al.Federal · Class action · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of CaliforniaJune 15, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| California | June 15, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. d/b/a OG v. Letitia James et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New YorkJune 12, 2026
| New York | June 12, 2026 | Pending | Sources› |
Mazza v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al.Federal · Class action · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CaliforniaJune 12, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| California | June 12, 2026 | Consolidated into Chehal | Sources› |
Collar et al. v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al.Federal · Class action · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CaliforniaJune 12, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| California | June 12, 2026 | Consolidated into Chehal | Sources› |
United States and CFTC v. State of Wisconsin et al.Federal · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of WisconsinJune 10, 2026
| Wisconsin | June 10, 2026 | Pending | Sources› |
Matthew Slovin v. KalshiEX LLCState · Supreme Court of New York, New York CountyJune 9, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| New York | June 9, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
State of Arizona v. KalshiEX LLCState · Arizona state court (Maricopa County)2026-06-04 — Ninth Circuit proceedings in No. 26-2978 were stayed pending mandates in three related appeals.
| Arizona | June 4, 2026 | Prosecution enjoined | Sources› |
State of Arizona v. Kalshi Trading LLCState · Maricopa County Superior CourtJune 4, 2026 — related Ninth Circuit proceedings were stayed pending mandates in related appeals.
| Arizona | June 4, 2026 | Prosecution enjoined | Sources› |
KalshiEX LLC v. Nevada Gaming Control Board — consolidated appealPlatform challenge · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (from D. Nev.)May 21, 2026
| Nevada | May 21, 2026 | On appeal | Sources› |
Martin Trinidad et al. v. Kalshi, Inc. et al.State · Supreme Court of New York, New York CountyMay 20, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| New York | May 20, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
Roberts v. Kalshi, Inc. et al.Federal · Class action · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkMay 11, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Kentucky | May 11, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Agency cease-and-desist orderState · Administrative — Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Agency; on appeal to the Fourth CircuitMay 7, 2026
| Maryland | May 7, 2026 | On appeal | Sources› |
Nevada ex rel. Gaming Control Board v. Blockratize, Inc.Platform challenge · State · First Judicial District Court, Carson City, Nevada; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 2026
| Nevada | May 1, 2026 | Enforcement pending | Sources› |
Ho-Chunk Nation v. KalshiEX LLCTribal · U.S. District Court, Western District of WisconsinMay 1, 2026
| Wisconsin | May 1, 2026 | Motion to dismiss denied | Sources› |
Smith v. Kalshi Inc. et al.Federal · Class action · U.S. District Court for the District of MassachusettsApril 22, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Massachusetts | April 22, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
Chehal et al. v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al.Federal · Class action · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CaliforniaApril 22, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| California | April 22, 2026 | Consolidated lead / active | Sources› |
People of the State of New York v. Gemini Titan, LLCState · New York state courtApril 21, 2026
| New York | April 21, 2026 | Pending | Sources› |
New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement cease-and-desist orderState · Administrative — NJ Division of Gaming EnforcementApril 6, 2026
| New Jersey | April 6, 2026 | Enforcement enjoined | Sources› |
KalshiEX LLC v. Johnson et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court, District of ArizonaApril 2026
| Arizona | April 1, 2026 | Preliminary injunction denied | Sources› |
Robinhood Derivatives LLC v. Griffin et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court, Western District of WashingtonApril 1, 2026
| Washington | April 1, 2026 | Pending | Sources› |
Golan v. KalshiEX LLC et al.Federal · Class action · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkMarch 24, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| New York | March 24, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
Willis v. Kalshi Inc. et al.Federal · Class action · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of AlabamaMarch 20, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Alabama | March 20, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
Kaiserman v. KalshiEX LLC et al.Federal · Class action · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of GeorgiaMarch 20, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Georgia | March 20, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
Risch v. KalshiEX LLC et al.Federal · Class action · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkMarch 5, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| California | March 5, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
Reynolds v. Kalshi Inc. et al.Federal · Class action · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkFebruary 20, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Oregon | February 20, 2026 | Active / pending | Sources› |
Yoon v. Blockratize, Inc. d/b/a PolymarketFederal · Class action · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkFebruary 11, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| New York | February 11, 2026 | Consolidated into Diego / terminated | Sources› |
QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US v. Campbell et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court, District of MassachusettsFebruary 9, 2026
| Massachusetts | February 9, 2026 | Pending | Sources› |
Diego v. Blockratize, Inc. et al.Federal · Class action · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkFebruary 4, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| New York | February 4, 2026 | Consolidated lead / active | Sources› |
Goldman v. Novig Betting, Inc.Federal · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkFebruary 3, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| New York | February 3, 2026 | Dismissed without prejudice | Sources› |
Jennings v. Kalshi Inc. et al.Federal · Class action · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkJanuary 29, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| New York | January 29, 2026 | Consolidated into 1:25-cv-08585 | Sources› |
Hallman et al. v. KalshiEX LLC et al.Federal · Class action · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkJanuary 13, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| New York | January 13, 2026 | Consolidated into 1:25-cv-08585 | Sources› |
Josephson et al. v. Kalshi, Inc. et al.Federal · Class action · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkJanuary 8, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| New York | January 8, 2026 | Consolidated into 1:25-cv-08585 | Sources› |
Pelayo et al. v. Kalshi Inc. et al.Federal · Class action · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkNovember 26, 2025 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| New York | November 26, 2025 | Consolidated into 1:25-cv-08585 | Sources› |
The State of Illinois ex rel. Lavery v. KalshiEX LLC et al.Federal · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of IllinoisNovember 24, 2025 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Illinois | November 24, 2025 | Active / pending | Sources› |
In re Kalshi Sports Prediction Market Litigation (Yee originating action)Federal · Class action · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkOctober 16, 2025 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| New York | October 16, 2025 | Consolidated lead / active | Sources› |
South Carolina Gambling Recovery LLC v. Kalshi Inc. et al.State · South Carolina state court / U.S. District Court for the District of South CarolinaOctober 7, 2025 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| South Carolina | October 7, 2025 | Stayed | Sources› |
Georgia Gambling Recovery LLC v. Kalshi Inc. et al.State · Georgia state court / U.S. District Court for the Middle District of GeorgiaOctober 2, 2025 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Georgia | October 2, 2025 | Stayed | Sources› |
Massachusetts Gambling Recovery LLC v. Kalshi Inc. et al.State · Massachusetts Superior Court / U.S. District Court for the District of MassachusettsSeptember 22, 2025 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Massachusetts | September 22, 2025 | Stayed | Sources› |
Illinois Gambling Recovery LLC v. Kalshi Inc. et al.State · Circuit Court of Cook County / U.S. District Court for the Northern District of IllinoisSeptember 19, 2025 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Illinois | September 19, 2025 | Remanded / state proceedings | Sources› |
The State of Illinois ex rel. Lavery v. North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc.Federal · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of IllinoisSeptember 8, 2025 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Illinois | September 8, 2025 | Active / pending | Sources› |
Ohio Gambling Recovery LLC v. Kalshi, Inc. et al.State · Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas / U.S. District Court for the Northern District of OhioAugust 28, 2025 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Ohio | August 28, 2025 | Remanded / state proceedings | Sources› |
Kentucky Gambling Recovery LLC v. Kalshi Inc. et al.State · Franklin Circuit Court / U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of KentuckyAugust 22, 2025 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
| Kentucky | August 22, 2025 | Remanded / state proceedings | Sources› |
KalshiEX LLC v. Commodity Futures Trading CommissionPlatform challenge · U.S. District Court for D.C.; U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. CircuitOctober 2, 2024
| District of Columbia | October 2, 2024 | Concluded appellate phase / foundational election-contract ruling | Sources› |
Clarke et al. v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (PredictIt litigation)Platform challenge · U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas; Fifth CircuitMarch 1, 2024
| Texas | March 1, 2024 | Appellate rulings issued; docket history requires final-status check | Sources› |
In re Blockratize, Inc. d/b/a Polymarket.comFederal · Commodity Futures Trading CommissionJanuary 2022
| Federal | January 3, 2022 | Resolved — $1.4 million penalty and market wind-down order | Sources› |
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Trade Exchange Network Limited and Intrade The Prediction Market LimitedFederal · U.S. District Court, District of ColumbiaJuly 5, 2018
| District of Columbia | July 5, 2018 | Resolved — summary judgment and $3 million joint-and-several civil penalty | Sources› |
In the Matter of Trade Exchange Network LimitedFederal · Commodity Futures Trading CommissionOctober 4, 2005
| Federal | October 4, 2005 | Resolved — $150,000 penalty, cease-and-desist order and undertakings | Sources› |
By state
Where the cases are
30 states and DC, plus federal and tribal forums.
| Platforms involved | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York | 28 | Nov 3, 2026 | Coinbase, Crypto.com, Gemini, Kalshi, Novig, Polymarket | |
| Nevada | 9 | Nov 4, 2026 | Coinbase, Crypto.com, Gemini, Kalshi, Polymarket, Robinhood | |
| Wisconsin | 8 | Nov 2, 2026 | Coinbase, Crypto.com, Kalshi, Novig, Polymarket, Robinhood, Underdog | |
| Illinois | 8 | Oct 30, 2026 | Coinbase, Crypto.com, Kalshi, Polymarket, Robinhood, Webull | |
| Ohio | 7 | Oct 28, 2026 | Kalshi, Polymarket, Robinhood, Underdog, Webull | |
| Massachusetts | 7 | Oct 25, 2026 | Kalshi, Novig, Polymarket, Robinhood, Underdog, Webull | |
| California | 7 | Oct 21, 2026 | Kalshi, Robinhood | |
| Connecticut | 6 | Nov 3, 2026 | Coinbase, Crypto.com, Gemini, Kalshi, Novig, Polymarket, ProphetX, Robinhood, Underdog, Webull | |
| Kentucky | 6 | Oct 26, 2026 | Coinbase, Crypto.com, Kalshi, Polymarket, Robinhood, Webull | |
| New Mexico | 6 | Oct 9, 2026 | Kalshi, Novig, Polymarket, Underdog | |
| Washington | 6 | Sep 14, 2026 | Crypto.com, Kalshi, Novig, Robinhood, Underdog | |
| Utah | 5 | Oct 30, 2026 | Crypto.com, Kalshi | |
| Maryland | 5 | Oct 14, 2026 | Coinbase, Crypto.com, Kalshi, Polymarket, Robinhood, Webull | |
| Michigan | 5 | Oct 7, 2026 | Coinbase, Kalshi, Polymarket, Robinhood | |
| Missouri | 4 | Oct 27, 2026 | Crypto.com, Kalshi, Novig, Polymarket, Robinhood, Underdog | |
| Arizona | 4 | Sep 14, 2026 | Kalshi | |
| New Jersey | 3 | Oct 30, 2026 | Kalshi, Robinhood | |
| Tennessee | 3 | Oct 28, 2026 | Kalshi, Underdog | |
| Minnesota | 3 | Aug 18, 2026 | Kalshi, Polymarket | |
| Federal | 3 | Jul 31, 2026 | Intrade, Kalshi, Polymarket | |
| District of Columbia | 3 | Jun 26, 2026 | Intrade, Kalshi, Polymarket | |
| Rhode Island | 2 | Aug 28, 2026 | Kalshi, Polymarket | |
| Georgia | 2 | Mar 20, 2026 | Kalshi, Robinhood | |
| Arkansas | 1 | Nov 4, 2026 | Kalshi | |
| Iowa | 1 | Oct 28, 2026 | Kalshi | |
| Louisiana | 1 | Oct 23, 2026 | Kalshi | |
| Montana | 1 | Sep 21, 2026 | Kalshi | |
| Virginia | 1 | Sep 10, 2026 | Kalshi | |
| Alabama | 1 | Mar 20, 2026 | Kalshi | |
| Oregon | 1 | Feb 20, 2026 | Kalshi | |
| South Carolina | 1 | Oct 7, 2025 | Kalshi, Robinhood, Webull | |
| Texas | 1 | Mar 1, 2024 | PredictIt | |
The arguments
Five questions the courts and scholars are arguing
Does federal commodities law reach event contracts at all?
Ilya Beylin (U. Chicago Business Law Review, 2025) says many event contracts serve neither hedging nor price discovery, so state law still applies. Alexander Kurtz (Boston College Law Review, 2026) finds the law contradictory but would narrow the CFTC’s power to shut markets down rather than widen state power.
Read: Beylin · Kurtz
Should one regulator own this, or both?
Holden, Turk and Edelman (Illinois Law Review) call sports contracts regulatory arbitrage and argue for a role for both levels of government. David Krause (CLS Blue Sky) says the test should be what a contract does, not where it’s listed.
Read: Holden, Turk & Edelman · Krause
Does tribal gaming authority survive CFTC registration?
Tribes argue sports contracts on tribal lands are Class III gaming under IGRA; Kalshi argues tribal authority doesn’t reach non-members and federal law preempts the claim. The Ninth Circuit has sided with two California tribes at the preliminary stage.
Read: Sepe (SSRN)
Are sports contracts a different problem?
The NFL, NBA, NCAA and five players’ unions want integrity safeguards sportsbooks already have: minimum age, prop limits, barred-bettor lists. MLB signed an integrity agreement with the CFTC. Kalshi backs the CFTC’s contract-by-contract review.
Read: NCAA request · Players’ unions
How good are the prices as forecasts?
Wolfers and Zitzewitz (2004) find prediction markets forecast well. A 2026 study of about 23 million Kalshi sports trades (Moshrefi) finds calibration breaks down near expiry and combos are priced above fair value.
Read: Wolfers & Zitzewitz · Moshrefi
Legal news
All news →Our latest legal coverage
Arkansas Sues Kalshi as State Gambling Crackdown Adds Another Front
Attorney General Tim Griffin also sued sweepstakes casino operator VGW. The Kalshi case expands the fight into Arkansas, though the Eighth Circuit already has a related Iowa appeal.
Cheryle Shepstone ·Ninth Circuit Rejects Kalshi Rehearing, Opening Next Route to Supreme Court
The court left its Nevada ruling intact after no judge requested an en banc vote. Kalshi can now seek Supreme Court review as its state enforcement fights continue.
Cheryle Shepstone ·Stock Perpetuals Survive First Legal Challenge as Court Denies Emergency Injunction
The US District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected a request for an emergency injunction on Tuesday that could have halted stock perp trading on designated contract markets.
Derek Helling ·Explanation
How the tracker works
What counts as a matter
Each record is one distinct lawsuit, court case or regulatory action. Separately filed lawsuits stay separate even when a court coordinates or consolidates them. Appeals are attached to the case they came from, and amicus briefs or interventions don’t create new records. The live totals above are computed from these records.
How records are verified
Every record links its primary source: a court docket, a filed document or an official order. The “latest activity” is what that source shows, with the date it was verified. Where a development has only been reported, not seen on a docket, the record says so, as with the reported Crypto.com petition.
Further reading
- Law firm analysis: WilmerHale, Paul, Weiss on the Third Circuit, Gibson Dunn on state attorneys general, Greenberg Traurig on the CFTC proposal.
- Opinions: Third Circuit, KalshiEX v. Flaherty; Ninth Circuit, KalshiEX v. Assad.
- Who to follow: Daniel Wallach (Wallach Legal), Dustin Gouker (The Closing Line), Carl E. Kennedy (Katten), Peter Hammon, Alfonso Straffon and Mick Bransfield.
Report an omission or error
If a case is missing or a record is wrong, tell us through our contact form with a link to the docket or document. We correct records and note the date.
Methodology
One record per distinct lawsuit, court case or regulatory action, each linked to its primary source: a docket, filed document or official order. Counts are computed from the records.
Full methodology
RecordsOne record per distinct lawsuit, court case or regulatory action, each linked to a docket, filed document or official order.
CountingSeparately filed lawsuits stay separate even when consolidated; appeals attach to the original case; amicus briefs don’t add records.
UpdatesEach record shows its latest verified activity and the date it was verified.
CorrectionsMissing or wrong records are corrected with a dated note.
Data and sources
- Source records for every number on this page: contracts, quote types, calculations and history
- DeFi Rate prediction-market methodology: how we price, average and label every figure
- Snapshot, Nov 5, 6:13 AM ET: a copy of these figures for citation, until the next update (older snapshots aren’t stored yet)
- Prediction market legal matters (CSV)
- Every figure and contract on this page (CSV)
Questions
Is Kalshi legal in every state?
Kalshi operates nationally under CFTC rules, but several states are challenging its sports contracts, and federal appeals courts have split. The Third Circuit ruled for Kalshi in New Jersey; the Ninth Circuit ruled against it in Nevada.
Will the Supreme Court decide whether sports prediction markets are legal?
Three petitions ask it to. The Court hasn’t agreed to hear any of them yet; four justices must vote to take a case.
Keep reading