Snapshot · data observed Nov 9, 4:06 PM ET
Legal trackerEvery figure as of Nov 9, 4:06 PM ET
A record of every figure at one observation, for citation. Numbers on the live page change as markets move; these don’t. Older snapshots aren’t stored yet: after the page’s next update this address says so instead of showing newer figures. Methodology · Live source records
North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. v. State of Nevada et al.
Supreme Court extends respondents' response deadline to December 7; certiorari not grantedPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. On November 9, 2026, the Supreme Court granted the motion to extend the response deadline in North American Derivatives Exchange's petition, No. 26-344, to and including December 7 for all respondents. Nevada respondents requested the extension from November 16 on November 6. The petition was filed September 11 and docketed September 15. The extension gives respondents more time to answer; it is not a grant of review, consolidation or a merits ruling and does not change trading access. Wallach's discussion of possible January review and later argument is commentary, not a Court schedule.
November 9, 2026 afternoon: live official Supreme Court docket, No. 26-344, records today's grant extending the response deadline to December 7 for all respondents. The earlier pending-request status is superseded; no grant of review is shown. Latest activity November 9, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. v. State of Nevada et al.: supreme court extends respondents' response deadline to december 7; certiorari not granted” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (3)
KalshiEX LLC v. New York State Gaming Commission
November 9 tribal amicus brief filed; November 3 injunction denial unchanged, appeal pendingCourt litigation. On November 9, 2026, the Indian Gaming Association, National Congress of American Indians and other tribal amici filed a brief supporting defendants-appellees in No. 26-1835 (DktEntry 99.1). The court-stamped cover and matching docket entry verify the filing, not a new ruling. On November 6, 2026, NAGRA/IAGR (DktEntry 83.1), Better Markets (84.1), Ohio, Nevada, 35 other states, DC and the Northern Mariana Islands (91.1), Gary Gensler (93.1) and the American Gaming Association (96.1) filed amicus briefs supporting the New York defendants. Court-stamped covers and matching docket entries verify the filings. These are amici's positions, not holdings. On November 3, 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; certified DktEntry 75.1 reproduces it. This denies temporary appellate protection, not the appeals themselves or a final merits ruling. Entry 73 records the motion hearing 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 CFTC permission to participate in oral argument as amicus; its signed order remains unavailable, so no argument-time allocation or additional conditions are established. Entry 72 and the court-stamped 72.1 PDF confirm New York officials' October 30 appellees brief. The complete October 21 notice, 60.1, identified the hearing as injunction-pending-appeal argument, not merits argument. Party arguments and judicial questions are not holdings.
November 9: case-specific Atom entry99 and complete41-page PDF's stamped cover match26-1835, November9 and Indian Gaming Association, NCAI and other tribal amici supporting defendants-appellees. Filing identity/date verified, not every argument. Prior November6 amici and complete74.1/75.1 denial retained; no final merits ruling inferred. Latest activity November 9, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “KalshiEX LLC v. New York State Gaming Commission: november 9 tribal amicus brief filed; november 3 injunction denial unchanged, appeal pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (12)
Derek Brown v. Kalshi Inc. et al.
Susquehanna opposition reported; reproduced cover matches case, no injunction ruling verifiedState enforcement lawsuit challenging event contracts. On November 6 Eastern (November 7 UTC), Daniel Wallach reported Susquehanna's opposition to Utah's preliminary-injunction request. The reproduced opposition cover matches case 260908356, Judge Amanda Montague and the Susquehanna defendants. A reproduced argument excerpt says market makers post buy/sell orders on an exchange and earn spreads and winning-contract payouts, arguing this is not gambling. Those are defense arguments, not a court finding; the full opposition and filing stamp remain unavailable. The latest activity date is the November 6 report date, not an independently verified filing date. Wallach's earlier November 6 report said Kalshi opposed the request the previous day. Three captionless excerpts invoke Utah's lawful-business-transaction exception and commodity-contract definitions. One does not dispute the general gambling definition but immediately claims an exception. These are Kalshi's arguments, not a finding of legality, an admission of criminal liability or independent verification of claimed federal approval. The filing date and case connection of those excerpts remain attributed to Wallach. Utah's motion, reported October 29, has a reproduced cover matching this case, parties and judge; the full motion and filing date remain unverified. Wallach reports requested restrictions on politics, elections, culture, sports and mentions contracts, with geofencing/account restrictions; those details remain attributed. The October 20 complaint sought preliminary and permanent injunctions, restitution, damages and disgorgement. Allegations and requested relief are not findings. No injunction or federal removal has been verified. This case is separate from KalshiEX LLC v. Cox and the criminal proceeding.
November 7: visually inspected Susquehanna opposition cover matching 260908356 and Judge Montague, and market-making argument excerpt. Full opposition/stamp unavailable; November6 Eastern report date used, not verified filing date. Prior Kalshi captionless-excerpt and complaint checks preserved. No injunction or removal verified. Latest activity November 6, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Derek Brown v. Kalshi Inc. et al.: susquehanna opposition reported; reproduced cover matches case, no injunction ruling verified” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (12)
United States of America and CFTC v. State of Utah and Derek Brown
November 6 conference held; TRO/PI hearing set for November 20, with expedited briefingFederal preemption challenge to state event-contract enforcement. The November 6, 2026 minute entry (ECF 17) records a status conference before Judge Robert J. Shelby and sets a hearing on the United States and CFTC's TRO/preliminary-injunction motion for November 20 at 1:30 PM in Room 3.100. On that motion, defendants' response is due November 11, plaintiffs' reply November 16, and a limited surreply November 18. For a potential motion to dismiss, the court sets November 10 for the motion, November 17 for the response and November 19 for the reply. This is a briefing and hearing schedule, not a grant of emergency relief, a filed dismissal motion or a dismissal ruling. The case-specific public docket reproduces the minute entry; Wallach's reproduced entry shows the same schedule. The earlier October 30 order (ECF 10) set the November 6 conference and required actual-notice service by November 3 and proof by November 4. Entry 16 records a November 2 certificate of service, but the underlying certificate has not been reviewed. Plaintiffs moved for emergency relief October 29 in ECF 7; the full motion remains unverified. The 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.
November 7: matched case 2:26-cv-01055 and complete November 6 ECF17 minute text in case-specific Atom to reproduced entry image. Verified November20 1:30 PM Room3.100 hearing and all briefing dates; no timezone added beyond entry. ECF16 verifies certificate filing only. Prior complete signed ECF10 and complaint checks retained; full ECF7 remains unreviewed. No emergency relief or dismissal ruling inferred. Latest activity November 6, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “United States of America and CFTC v. State of Utah and Derek Brown: november 6 conference held; tro/pi hearing set for november 20, with expedited briefing” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (10)
State of Arkansas ex rel. Tim Griffin v. KalshiEX LLC and Kalshi Inc.
Complaint filed seeking injunctive and monetary relief; no ruling verifiedState consumer-protection lawsuit over event contracts. On 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.
Verified November 5 against the complete 57-page complaint hosted by the Arkansas Attorney General. Filing stamp, caption and handwritten docket visually inspected; allegations and requested relief checked in the full OCR. No later order or disposition verified. Latest activity November 4, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “State of Arkansas ex rel. Tim Griffin v. KalshiEX LLC and Kalshi Inc.: complaint filed seeking injunctive and monetary relief; no ruling verified” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (2)
KalshiEX, LLC v. Assad
Panel and en banc rehearing denied November 4Platform challenge to state gambling regulation. 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.
November 4, 2026: visually read complete reproduced court-stamped order, page 1 of 1, No. 25-7516, DktEntry 231.1. Panel and en banc rehearing denied; no judge requested an en banc vote. No Supreme Court filing, mandate issuance or separate Arizona disposition established by this order. Latest activity November 4, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “KalshiEX, LLC v. Assad: panel and en banc rehearing denied november 4” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (3)
New York v. KalshiEX LLC
November 4 revised-subpoena letter filed; no federal protective-order or remand ruling verifiedCourt litigation. The case-specific docket feed records KalshiEX's November 4, 2026 letter to Judge Vernon S. Broderick, ECF 24, titled Development Concerning the Revised Subpoena. The entry verifies filing, not the letter's contents or a ruling. In the October 30 joint letter, ECF 23, Kalshi sought a protective order under Rule 26(c), or alternatively the All Writs Act, arguing that the attorney general's September 25 investigative subpoena improperly obtains discovery outside the federal rules. The attorney general opposed relief, describing a separate investigation into potentially deceptive advertising and market-maker relationships, and arguing lack of jurisdiction, abstention and prematurity. Those are party positions, not findings. The October 30 letter described remand as pending; no later remand or protective-order ruling was verified. Separately, reproduced page 2 of NYSCEF Document 37, index 454828/2026, received November 6, directs Kalshi to show cause on December 17 at 2:15 p.m. Eastern why compliance with OAG's September 25 subpoena and a $50 penalty should not be ordered. It lists November 13 service and December 3 opposition deadlines. This schedules consideration, not compelled compliance, a penalty award or a trading restriction. The excerpt lacks the full caption and signature page; the complete state order and initial filing date remain unverified. This is not the Gaming Commission's separate index 454547/2026, whose December 14 hearing is tracked separately. ECF 23 pages 1-5 of 6 were reviewed previously; page 6, subpoena exhibits and ECF 24 contents remain unavailable.
November 6: read case-specific Atom ECF24 entry (November4); letter contents unavailable. Visually inspected reproduced NYSCEF37 page2: index454828/2026, received November6, December17 2:15 p.m. Eastern show-cause hearing, November13 service/December3 opposition. Full caption, signature page, complete order and initial state filing date unavailable; no merits or compliance ruling inferred. ECF23 prior five-page verification retained. Separate Gaming Commission case/hearing preserved. Latest activity November 4, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “New York v. KalshiEX LLC: november 4 revised-subpoena letter filed; no federal protective-order or remand ruling verified” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (10)
Blue Lake Rancheria et al. v. KalshiEX LLC et al.
Preliminary injunction granted against Kalshi sports contracts on plaintiff tribes' Indian landsTribal litigation. November 4, 2026: Following that day's further status conference, Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted the plaintiffs' preliminary-injunction motion (Dkt. 35). The signed order, ECF 106, bars Kalshi Inc. and KalshiEX from offering any sports contracts on the plaintiff tribes' Indian lands, including contracts involving or referencing baseball, tennis, pickleball, soccer, basketball, football, golf, chess, esports, hockey, motorsports, boxing, wrestling and UFC events. The plaintiffs must provide Kalshi with maps delineating their Indian lands by November 13. Kalshi must submit a compliance status report within 21 days of the order. This is geographically limited preliminary relief, not a statewide California ban or final merits judgment; the operative restriction names Kalshi Inc. and KalshiEX, not Robinhood. It follows the September 16 Ninth Circuit decision reversing the IGRA portion of the preliminary-injunction denial and returning the remaining injunction factors to the district court. The October 21 case-management order had required geofencing discussions, permitted an amended complaint and terminated the then-pending dismissal motions without prejudice; the November 4 order now supplies an injunction rather than merely directing discussions.
November 5, 2026: read the complete one-page public RECAP PDF of signed ECF 106 and visually checked the matching reproduced court-stamped page: case 3:25-cv-06162-JSC, filed and dated November 4. Verified geographic sports-contract restriction, November 13 map deadline and 21-day compliance report. No statewide ban, final judgment, actual implementation or Robinhood-specific injunction inferred. Latest activity November 4, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Blue Lake Rancheria et al. v. KalshiEX LLC et al.: preliminary injunction granted against kalshi sports contracts on plaintiff tribes' indian lands” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (9)
Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. v. Tong et al.
Injunction pending appeal denied November 3; appeal remains pendingPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. On 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.
November 4: read both pages of court-stamped DktEntry74.1 and certified75.1; matched Coinbase Financial Markets/Tong caption, appeal26-2297 and district25-cv-2121. Express denial of all three injunction-pending-appeal motions verified. No final merits result inferred. Original district-docket source retained. Latest activity November 3, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. v. Tong et al.: injunction pending appeal denied november 3; appeal remains pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (4)
KalshiEX LLC v. Connecticut regulators
Injunction pending appeal denied November 3; appeal remains pendingCourt litigation. On 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.
November 4: read both pages of court-stamped DktEntry74.1 and certified75.1, matching Kalshi/Cafferelli caption, No.26-2239 and district No.25-cv-2016. Express denial applies to all three injunction-pending-appeal motions. No final merits disposition inferred. Prior briefing verification preserved. Latest activity November 3, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “KalshiEX LLC v. Connecticut regulators: injunction pending appeal denied november 3; appeal remains pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (4)
Joseph Giganti, Sr. v. Patrick W. Moynihan, Jr. et al.
Preliminary-injunction motion denied November 2; no final disposition verifiedIndividual voter challenge to election-contract voting disqualification. On 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.
Checked November 3: official E.D. Wisconsin RSS matches 1:26-cv-01934 and November 2 ECF 22. Visually inspected reproduced signed page 7 of 7: Judge Conway denies ECF 4 preliminary-injunction motion. Full order pages 1-6 and reasoning unavailable; official document link returns login. No dismissal or final merits judgment inferred. Original complaint remains verified only from page 1. Latest activity November 2, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Joseph Giganti, Sr. v. Patrick W. Moynihan, Jr. et al.: preliminary-injunction motion denied november 2; no final disposition verified” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (7)
State of Utah v. KalshiEX, LLC, Tarek Mansour and Luana Lopes Lara
KalshiEX initial appearance set for December 4, 8:30 a.m.; charges remain allegationsState criminal enforcement action. An October 30, 2026 court notice schedules KalshiEX LLC's in-person initial appearance/summons for December 4 at 8:30 a.m. in Salt Lake City's Third District Court, FAC - S31, 450 South State Street. The notice and reproduced first page of an amended summons identify KalshiEX case 261912852. The amended summons also directs an in-person appearance at that date and time. These documents were surfaced by Daniel Wallach November 5 Eastern; the underlying scheduling event is October 30, not a new November 6 order. Utah's October 28 criminal information names KalshiEX, LLC and co-defendants Tarek Mansour and Luana Lopes Lara, alleging 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 remain prosecutors' allegations, not findings or convictions. The reproduced summons names KalshiEX only; it does not establish the co-founders' appearance dates, service, a plea, an arrest or a platform shutdown. This criminal proceeding is separate from Utah's October 20 civil lawsuit.
November 6: visually read complete reproduced October 30 initial-appearance notice and amended-summons page 1; matching KalshiEX caption, docket, date/time and AGO 9465862. Full amended summons, service and co-defendant schedules not recovered. Complete official charging PDF and October 28 filing were verified October 29. Latest activity October 30, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “State of Utah v. KalshiEX, LLC, Tarek Mansour and Luana Lopes Lara: kalshiex initial appearance set for december 4, 8:30 a.m.; charges remain allegations” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (8)
Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. v. Raoul et al.
Preliminary injunction entered; Illinois appealsPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. October 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.
Complete signed consolidated injunction checked October 31, 2026. Coinbase case-specific Atom feed reproduces ECF 97 next-steps directive, ECF 98 signed-injunction entry and ECF 99 appeal entry; appeal PDF and Seventh Circuit number not verified. Latest activity October 30, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. v. Raoul et al.: preliminary injunction entered; illinois appeals” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (3)
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.
Covered enforcement preliminarily enjoined; Illinois appealsAdministrative / enforcement proceeding. October 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.
Complete signed October 30 consolidated injunction and related United States/CFTC docket feed checked October 31, 2026. Administrative classification retained; no rescission of the agency letters or appellate stay verified. Latest activity October 30, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “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.: covered enforcement preliminarily enjoined; illinois appeals” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (3)
KalshiEX LLC v. Raoul et al.
Preliminary injunction entered; Illinois appealsCourt litigation. October 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.
Complete signed consolidated injunction and both reproduced pages of Kalshi ECF 65 checked October 31, 2026; Kalshi Atom feed confirms ECF 64. No Seventh Circuit docket number or stay verified. Latest activity October 30, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “KalshiEX LLC v. Raoul et al.: preliminary injunction entered; illinois appeals” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (4)
United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Illinois et al.
Preliminary injunction entered; Illinois appealsCFTC civil enforcement. October 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.
Complete signed injunction checked October 31, 2026. Case-specific Atom feed reproduces ECF 104 next-steps directive and ECF 106 appeal entry; appeal PDF and Seventh Circuit number not verified. Latest activity October 30, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Illinois et al.: preliminary injunction entered; illinois appeals” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (3)
KalshiEX LLC v. Flaherty
Certiorari pending; October 30 extension granted, Kalshi response due December 7Court litigation. 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.
October 30 afternoon: re-read official Supreme Court docket No.26-299. New October30 entry expressly grants extension through December7, superseding this morning's pending-request status. Earlier complete October29 letter and amici verification retained. Briefing extension only; certiorari not granted. Latest activity October 30, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “KalshiEX LLC v. Flaherty: certiorari pending; october 30 extension granted, kalshi response due december 7” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (12)
In the Matter of the Application of New York State Gaming Commission v. Kalshi, Inc. and KalshiEX LLC
Commercial Division transfer requested and opposed October 29; December 14 subpoena hearing remains scheduledState petition to compel administrative-subpoena compliance. October 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.
October30: read reproduced court-stamped first pages of NYSCEF23 (1/5) and24 (1/2), filed/received October29, exact index454547/2026. They verify transfer request and opposition, not a decision. Prior October29 visual verification of both signed Document22 pages preserved. Complete letters, petition and service proof unavailable. Latest activity October 29, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “In the Matter of the Application of New York State Gaming Commission v. Kalshi, Inc. and KalshiEX LLC: commercial division transfer requested and opposed october 29; december 14 subpoena hearing remains scheduled” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (9)
KalshiEX LLC v. Bird et al.
Appeal pending; brief and appendix deadline extended to December 7, 2026Court litigation. October 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.
Complete reproduced October 28 Eighth Circuit order read October 29, 2026; docket 26-2874 and December 7 brief/appendix deadline verified. No new merits or stay ruling established. Latest activity October 28, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “KalshiEX LLC v. Bird et al.: appeal pending; brief and appendix deadline extended to december 7, 2026” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (3)
KalshiEX LLC v. Cox
Enforcement permitted; state amici file in pending Tenth Circuit appealCourt litigation. October 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.
Reproduced court-stamped page 4 of Tenth Circuit Document 42 read October 29, 2026: filing date, docket and amici list verified. Full brief and later appellate disposition not recovered; support for Utah attributed to Wallach. Latest activity October 28, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “KalshiEX LLC v. Cox: enforcement permitted; state amici file in pending tenth circuit appeal” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (3)
KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler et al.
Rehearing petition pending; Sixth Circuit directs response by November 12, with no extensionsCourt litigation. 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.
October 28, 2026: visually checked reproduced court-stamped Document 95, page 1, dated October 28, naming consolidated appeals 26-3196/26-5235 and directing a response by November 12, limited to 3,900 words with no extensions. No rehearing grant or later merits ruling verified. Latest activity October 28, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler et al.: rehearing petition pending; sixth circuit directs response by november 12, with no extensions” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (4)
KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel et al.
Rehearing petition pending; Sixth Circuit directs response by November 12, with no extensionsCourt litigation. On 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.
October 28, 2026: visually checked reproduced court-stamped Document 95, page 1, dated October 28, naming consolidated appeals 26-3196/26-5235 and directing a response by November 12, limited to 3,900 words with no extensions. No rehearing grant or later merits ruling verified. Latest activity October 28, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel et al.: rehearing petition pending; sixth circuit directs response by november 12, with no extensions” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (4)
KalshiEX LLC v. Hanaway et al.
Complaint filed; no injunction or merits ruling verifiedPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. On 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.
Checked October 28: official October 27 court entries verify caption, docket and ECF 1 complaint; visually inspected court-stamped page 1 of 39 for filing date and parties. Official document endpoint supplies a login shell, not a downloadable complaint. Full allegations, requested terms and later rulings not verified. Latest activity October 27, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “KalshiEX LLC v. Hanaway et al.: complaint filed; no injunction or merits ruling verified” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (4)
Missouri attorney general prediction-market cease-and-desist letters
Cease-and-desist letters issued; Novig and Kalshi federal challenges tracked separatelyAdministrative / regulator enforcement. On 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.
October 28: read the full official September 16 Kalshi letter and checked the official October 27 E.D. Mo. complaint entry and reproduced stamped page 1. Other letters' historical terms and the previously verified Novig filing are preserved, not freshly reverified. Full Kalshi complaint, compliance, withdrawals and later rulings not obtained. Latest activity October 27, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Missouri attorney general prediction-market cease-and-desist letters: cease-and-desist letters issued; novig and kalshi federal challenges tracked separately” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (6)
North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. v. Brown et al.
Complaint filed seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; no ruling verifiedPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. October 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.
Checked October 28, 2026: visually read reproduced court-stamped ECF1 page1 of40; confirms caption, case2:26-cv-01056-DBB, filing date and declaratory/injunctive complaint title. Full complaint and subsequent substantive docket entries not obtained. Current official Utah RSS supplied no matching entry; no absence inference. Latest activity October 26, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. v. Brown et al.: complaint filed seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; no ruling verified” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (2)
United States and CFTC v. Commonwealth of Kentucky et al.
Oral argument rescheduled for December 18, 2026, at 9 a.m. Eastern in LexingtonCFTC civil enforcement. 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).
Checked October 28, 2026: complete signed October 26 order reproduced in Wallach's October 27 post, independently matched to PacerMonitor Document 73, confirms December 18, 9 a.m., Lexington. No merits ruling inferred. Full supplemental briefs remain unreviewed; prior Document 67 verification preserved. Latest activity October 26, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “United States and CFTC v. Commonwealth of Kentucky et al.: oral argument rescheduled for december 18, 2026, at 9 a.m. eastern in lexington” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (5)
Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Campbell et al.
First Circuit oral argument scheduled for November 4, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. Eastern in BostonPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. October 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.
Checked October 28, 2026: current court-hosted First Circuit calendar PDF, order entered October25, pages1–2 matches exact No.26-1257, November4 Boston9:30 sitting and15minutes per side. Complete reproduced September17 notice independently read. Scheduling only; no merits ruling or new trading restriction inferred. Latest activity October 25, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Campbell et al.: first circuit oral argument scheduled for november 4, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. eastern in boston” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (4)
KalshiEX LLC v. Murrill et al.
Complaint filed seeking permanent injunctive and declaratory relief; no ruling verifiedPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. KalshiEX 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.
Court-stamped complaint page 1 of 34 visually checked October 25, 2026: court, plaintiff, visible defendants, docket, filing date and relief title. Full complaint and later orders not obtained; social characterizations are attributed. Latest activity October 23, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “KalshiEX LLC v. Murrill et al.: complaint filed seeking permanent injunctive and declaratory relief; no ruling verified” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (3)
United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of New York et al.
Preliminary-injunction motion pending; New York's October 23 rule-response letter verified in partCFTC civil enforcement. On 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.
October 26, 2026: read reproduced court-stamped ECF 180 page 1 of 2, filed October 23, matching the case-specific Atom entry. Visible text establishes New York defendants' response identity and arguments only, not judicial findings. Page 2, ECF 181 contents and full notice attachments remain unavailable; prior ECF 177 page-1 verification retained. Latest activity October 23, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of New York et al.: preliminary-injunction motion pending; new york's october 23 rule-response letter verified in part” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (6)
QCX LLC v. Wilson et al.
Related-case memorandum identifies Kalshi action; no injunction or merits ruling verifiedPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. QCX 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.
October 23: visually read reproduced ECF 8 page 1 of 2, matched caption, October 21 filing stamp, SDM-CMV suffix and named Kalshi related action. Page 2/signed reassignment directive unavailable; no merits outcome inferred. Complaint/exhibit facts retained from October 21 full-PDF verification. Current official RSS also confirms subsequent counsel appearances. Latest activity October 21, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “QCX LLC v. Wilson et al.: related-case memorandum identifies kalshi action; no injunction or merits ruling verified” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (8)
Ohio Casino Control Commission notice to sports gaming and fantasy contest licensees and applicants
Licensees told to stop supporting unlicensed Ohio sports-event contracts; compliance responses due October 30Regulator notice on prediction-market service-provider relationships. In 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.
October 22: read both reproduced pages, including date, signature, services covered, October 30 response deadline and FCM/introducing-broker footnote. Original agency-hosted copy not recovered; no individual license sanction or operator shutdown verified. Latest activity October 20, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Ohio Casino Control Commission notice to sports gaming and fantasy contest licensees and applicants: licensees told to stop supporting unlicensed ohio sports-event contracts; compliance responses due october 30” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (2)
North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. v. Hanaway et al.
Complaint filed seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. North 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.
Checked October 17: official W.D. Mo. RSS confirms case caption/docket; visually inspected court-stamped complaint page 1 of 39 confirms October 16 filing, parties and requested declaratory/injunctive relief. Full complaint and later substantive orders not obtained; no injunction or merits ruling verified. Latest activity October 16, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. v. Hanaway et al.: complaint filed seeking declaratory and injunctive relief” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (4)
Ludlow Exchange, LLC v. Hanaway et al.
Complaint filed seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. Ludlow 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.
Official court RSS checked October 16, 2026: caption, case number and ECF 1 complaint entry confirmed. Court-stamped page 1 of 42 reproduced by Wallach visually checked for parties, filing date and requested relief. Full complaint and later docket not obtained; no order inferred. Latest activity October 16, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Ludlow Exchange, LLC v. Hanaway et al.: complaint filed seeking declaratory and injunctive relief” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (5)
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. et al. v. Skrmetti et al.
Relief requested; case referred for magistrate-judge case managementPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. October 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.
October 22, 2026: independently read ECF 8 and 9 descriptions in the CourtListener Atom feed and rechecked the complaint public copy. ECF 9 is identified as a docket-text summary; signed PDF unavailable. No merits ruling, license revocation or app-access change inferred. Latest activity October 14, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. et al. v. Skrmetti et al.: relief requested; case referred for magistrate-judge case management” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (6)
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. QCX LLC et al.
Magistrate judge recommended remand; district judge has not ruledState enforcement of gambling laws. October 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.
Read the October 14 CM/ECF docket entry signed by Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins, reproduced in Mick Bransfield's post. It recommends granting Kentucky's remand motion. The public PacerMonitor docket confirmed the federal case identity and prior remand-motion history but had not yet posted the October 14 entry. Latest activity October 14, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Commonwealth of Kentucky v. QCX LLC et al.: magistrate judge recommended remand; district judge has not ruled” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (3)
KalshiEX LLC v. Martin
Appeal pending; Maryland filed supplemental authority citing Sixth Circuit decisionCourt litigation. 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.
Both court-stamped pages of Fourth Circuit No. 25-1892, Doc. 132-1, filed October 14, reviewed October 16, 2026 from the reproduction in Wallach's post. This verifies the letter and its arguments, not a new Fourth Circuit disposition or a complete current docket review. Latest activity October 14, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “KalshiEX LLC v. Martin: appeal pending; maryland filed supplemental authority citing sixth circuit decision” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (4)
Tennessee Sports Wagering Council cease-and-desist order
Cease-and-desist challenged; panel vacated preliminary injunction; rehearing petition filedAdministrative / enforcement proceeding. September 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.
October 15, 2026: official September 25 Sixth Circuit opinion and court-stamped October 9 rehearing petition reviewed. Corrects stale related-card injunction wording. Later mandate/stay status not independently verified; no claim of granted rehearing or current enforcement authority. Latest activity October 9, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Tennessee Sports Wagering Council cease-and-desist order: cease-and-desist challenged; panel vacated preliminary injunction; rehearing petition filed” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (3)
United States and CFTC v. State of New Mexico et al.
Motions pending; November 10 scheduling conference setCFTC civil enforcement. The 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.
October 22, 2026: independently read ECF 40's complete reproduced text-only notice in the case-specific CourtListener Atom feed and ECF 41-42 docket descriptions. Conference identity, date, time and scheduling-only scope verified; no substantive ruling inferred from supplemental filings. Latest activity October 9, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “United States and CFTC v. State of New Mexico et al.: motions pending; november 10 scheduling conference set” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (3)
Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. v. Nessel et al.
Michigan sports-contract halt agreed; underlying appeal remains pendingPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. October 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.
October 15, 2026: official MGCB October 7 announcement checked. Underlying stipulation not retrieved; current compliance not independently verified. Earlier primary-docket verification date retained, not advanced from a press release. Latest activity October 7, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. v. Nessel et al.: michigan sports-contract halt agreed; underlying appeal remains pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (2)
New Mexico v. Kalshi, Inc. et al.
Remand motion pending; November 10 scheduling conference setCourt litigation. 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.
October 22, 2026: independently read the reproduced text-only docket notice, ECF 44, in the case-specific CourtListener Atom feed. Case number, judge, October 6 entry date, November 10 time and remote scheduling-only purpose verified. No attachment exists for this text-only notice. Latest activity October 6, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “New Mexico v. Kalshi, Inc. et al.: remand motion pending; november 10 scheduling conference set” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (3)
Connecticut DCP prediction-market cease-and-desist orders
Gemini and Webull withdrawals reported; ProphetX withdrawal disputedAdministrative / regulator enforcement. October 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.
October 6: official September 10 announcement and full syndicated Hearst report checked. Gemini/Webull withdrawals are attributed to state officials, not independently verified against operative orders. ProphetX claim disputed by Bransfield. Exact exit dates, scope and recipient legal names remain unverified; orders pending public production. Latest activity October 5, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Connecticut DCP prediction-market cease-and-desist orders: gemini and webull withdrawals reported; prophetx withdrawal disputed” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (3)
QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US v. James et al.
Joint letter ordered; no stay or merits rulingPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. September 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.
Read the signed September 30 order, Doc. 26 in No. 1:26-cv-08345, naming both related cases. The filed complaint cover establishes the separate September 24 action. Latest activity September 30, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US v. James et al.: joint letter ordered; no stay or merits ruling” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (3)
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 US
Joint letter ordered; no stay or merits rulingState enforcement of gambling laws. September 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.
Read the signed September 30 order bearing both case numbers and Judge Ronnie Abrams's signature. It requires a joint letter within seven days, not a stay or merits ruling. Latest activity September 30, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “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 US: joint letter ordered; no stay or merits ruling” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (3)
Dana Nessel, Michigan Attorney General, on behalf of the People of Michigan and the Michigan Gaming Control Board v. KalshiEX LLC
Civil-contempt motion pending; November 24 show-cause hearing on official court calendarCourt litigation. 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.
October 23: followed official Ingham Online Services to MiCOURT public display; matched KalshiEX and Nessel, native case 2026-0000001087-CZ, November 24 at 3:30 PM, CR05, Judge Aquilina. Calendar confirms scheduling only, not order issuance or contempt findings. Full motion/signed scheduling order unavailable. September 1 injunction terms retained from October 18 PDF verification. Latest activity September 29, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Dana Nessel, Michigan Attorney General, on behalf of the People of Michigan and the Michigan Gaming Control Board v. KalshiEX LLC: civil-contempt motion pending; november 24 show-cause hearing on official court calendar” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (8)
KalshiEX LLC v. Knudsen et al.
Dismissed by joint stipulation (court order entered)Platform challenge to state gambling regulation. Dismissed 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.
Primary docket verified 2026-09-21. Latest activity September 21, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “KalshiEX LLC v. Knudsen et al.: dismissed by joint stipulation (court order entered)” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. et al. v. Brown et al.
Filed — relief not grantedPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. September 14, 2026 — Judge Robert Lasnik recused, and the case was reassigned to Judge Thomas Zilly. No merits ruling has issued.
Official CM/ECF docket and complaint entry verified September 9, 2026. Latest activity September 14, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. et al. v. Brown et al.: filed — relief not granted” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Arizona et al.
Preliminary injunction; summary disposition request pendingCFTC civil enforcement. September 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.
May 5 preliminary-injunction order, September 4 summary-disposition request and appellate docket verified. Latest activity September 14, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Arizona et al.: preliminary injunction; summary disposition request pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Connecticut et al.
Preliminary injunction and intervention motions pendingCFTC civil enforcement. Sept. 11, 2026 — Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. Robinhood filed notice supporting its pending, unopposed motion to intervene. Neither request has been granted.
Primary docket and filed-stamped Docs. 101–102 verified September 12, 2026. Latest activity September 11, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Connecticut et al.: preliminary injunction and intervention motions pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Moran v. KalshiEX LLC et al.
Filed — relief not grantedFederal civil action. Moran 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.
Filed-stamped complaint verified September 12, 2026. Latest activity September 10, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Moran v. KalshiEX LLC et al.: filed — relief not granted” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Dreitzer et al.
Certiorari petition filed — review not grantedPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. September 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.
Certiorari filing reported September 9, 2026; Ninth Circuit docket and Supreme Court public docket checked September 10, 2026. No Supreme Court docket number or grant of review was confirmed. Latest activity September 9, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Dreitzer et al.: certiorari petition filed — review not granted” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. et al. v. Campbell et al.
Filed — relief not grantedPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. September 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.
Official CM/ECF docket and complaint entry verified September 9, 2026; filed complaint text directly reviewed. Latest activity September 8, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. et al. v. Campbell et al.: filed — relief not granted” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. et al. v. Torrez et al.
Filed — relief not grantedPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. September 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.
Official CM/ECF docket and complaint entry verified September 9, 2026; filed complaint text directly reviewed. Latest activity September 8, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. et al. v. Torrez et al.: filed — relief not granted” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. et al. v. Wilson et al.
Filed — relief not grantedPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. September 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.
Official CM/ECF docket and complaint entry verified September 9, 2026. Latest activity September 8, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. et al. v. Wilson et al.: filed — relief not granted” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. et al. v. Kaul et al.
Filed — relief not grantedPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. September 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.
Official CM/ECF docket and complaint entry verified September 9, 2026. Latest activity September 8, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. et al. v. Kaul et al.: filed — relief not granted” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Nessel et al.
On appeal — michigan sports contracts paused by stipulation/orderPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. September 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.
Signed September 4 stipulation and order verified from the document reproduced in Daniel Wallach’s post. Latest activity September 4, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Nessel et al.: on appeal — michigan sports contracts paused by stipulation/order” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Pernas v. KalshiEX LLC
Tro denied; case pendingPrivate event-contract resolution and account-funds dispute. August 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.
Complaint, docket and August 31 TRO order verified September 2, 2026. Latest activity August 31, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Pernas v. KalshiEX LLC: tro denied; case pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
State of Connecticut v. KalshiEX LLC et al.
Removed — reassigned in federal courtState enforcement lawsuit. August 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.
Federal docket and reassignment order verified August 31, 2026. Latest activity August 31, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “State of Connecticut v. KalshiEX LLC et al.: removed — reassigned in federal court” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Ohio Casino Control Commission administrative action against Kalshi
Appeal pending — supplemental authority filedAdministrative / enforcement proceeding. August 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.
Sixth Circuit Rule 28(j) filing and underlying district docket verified August 31, 2026. Latest activity August 31, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Ohio Casino Control Commission administrative action against Kalshi: appeal pending — supplemental authority filed” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Nevada Gaming Control Board v. Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc.
Active / pendingState enforcement lawsuit. — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity August 28, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Nevada Gaming Control Board v. Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. v. Ford et al.
Active / pendingPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity August 28, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. v. Ford et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Warga v. Winklevoss et al.
Active / pendingConsumer/class action. — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity August 28, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Warga v. Winklevoss et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Flaherty et al.
Active / pendingPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity August 28, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Flaherty et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. v. Martin et al.
Active / pendingPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity August 28, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. v. Martin et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
KalshiEX LLC v. Morrison et al.
Active / pendingPlatform challenge to state taxation/regulation. — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity August 28, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “KalshiEX LLC v. Morrison et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Ludlow Exchange LLC v. Campbell et al.
Active / pendingPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity August 28, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Ludlow Exchange LLC v. Campbell et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Ludlow Exchange LLC v. James et al.
Active / pendingPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity August 28, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Ludlow Exchange LLC v. James et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Brown v. Kalshi, Inc.
Active / pendingConsumer class action — text messages. — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity August 28, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Brown v. Kalshi, Inc.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Ludlow Exchange LLC v. Brown et al.
Active / pendingPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity August 28, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Ludlow Exchange LLC v. Brown et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
State of Wisconsin v. Blockratize, Inc. et al.
Active / pendingState enforcement lawsuit. — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity August 28, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “State of Wisconsin v. Blockratize, Inc. et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
State of Wisconsin v. Foris Dax Markets, Inc.
Active / pendingState enforcement lawsuit. — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity August 28, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “State of Wisconsin v. Foris Dax Markets, Inc.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Ludlow Exchange LLC v. Kaul et al.
Active / pendingPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity August 28, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Ludlow Exchange LLC v. Kaul et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Ludlow Exchange LLC v. Torrez et al.
Active / pendingPlatform challenge to state gambling regulation. — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity August 28, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Ludlow Exchange LLC v. Torrez et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
The State of Rhode Island, by and through Attorney General Peter F. Neronha v. KalshiEX LLC and QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US
Pi motions pending — supplemental authority filedCourt litigation. August 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.
Primary docket/order verified. Latest activity August 28, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “The State of Rhode Island, by and through Attorney General Peter F. Neronha v. KalshiEX LLC and QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US: pi motions pending — supplemental authority filed” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
KalshiEX LLC v. Furcolo et al.
Pi motions pending — supplemental authority filedCourt litigation. August 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.
Docket/primary record linked. Latest activity August 28, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “KalshiEX LLC v. Furcolo et al.: pi motions pending — supplemental authority filed” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
North American Derivatives Exchange Inc. v. Brown
PendingCourt litigation. 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.
Primary docket/order verified. Latest activity August 26, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “North American Derivatives Exchange Inc. v. Brown: pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Mescalero Apache Tribe, Pueblo of Isleta, Pueblo of Pojoaque, and Pueblo of Sandia v. Kalshi, Inc. and KalshiEX, LLC
PendingTribal litigation. 2026-08-26: The court set a consolidated hearing for September 23, 2026 on defendants' motion to dismiss and plaintiffs' preliminary-injunction motion.
Primary docket/order verified. Latest activity August 26, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Mescalero Apache Tribe, Pueblo of Isleta, Pueblo of Pojoaque, and Pueblo of Sandia v. Kalshi, Inc. and KalshiEX, LLC: pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Michele Spagnuolo
PendingCFTC civil enforcement. No disposition identified through August 26, 2026
Official complaint verified. Latest activity August 26, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Michele Spagnuolo: pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. KalshiEX LLC
Injunction stayed pending appealCourt litigation. 2026-08-24 — 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.
Primary docket/order verified. Latest activity August 24, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. KalshiEX LLC: injunction stayed pending appeal” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Minnesota et al.
Preliminary injunction grantedCFTC civil enforcement. 2026-08-18: 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.
Primary docket/order verified. Latest activity August 18, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Minnesota et al.: preliminary injunction granted” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
KalshiEX LLC v. Keith Ellison, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Minnesota, et al.
Preliminary injunction grantedCourt litigation. 2026-08-18: 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.
Primary docket/order verified. Latest activity August 18, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “KalshiEX LLC v. Keith Ellison, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Minnesota, et al.: preliminary injunction granted” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
QCX LLC, doing business as Polymarket US v. Keith Ellison, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Minnesota, et al.
Preliminary injunction grantedCourt litigation. 2026-08-18: 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.
Primary docket/order verified. Latest activity August 18, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “QCX LLC, doing business as Polymarket US v. Keith Ellison, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Minnesota, et al.: preliminary injunction granted” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
City of Baltimore ex rel. Ebony Thompson v. KalshiEX LLC et al.
FiledMunicipal consumer-protection lawsuit. August 13, 2026
Primary complaint verified. Latest activity August 13, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “City of Baltimore ex rel. Ebony Thompson v. KalshiEX LLC et al.: filed” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
City of Baltimore ex rel. Ebony Thompson v. QCX LLC et al.
FiledMunicipal consumer-protection lawsuit. August 2026
Primary complaint verified. Latest activity August 13, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “City of Baltimore ex rel. Ebony Thompson v. QCX LLC et al.: filed” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
In the Matter of KalshiEX LLC’s Notice Regarding Market Emergency Declaration
Order in effectAdministrative / enforcement proceeding. 2026-08-11: CFTC directed Kalshi to continue performing its DCM functions under CEA §8a(9).
Primary docket/order verified. Latest activity August 11, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “In the Matter of KalshiEX LLC’s Notice Regarding Market Emergency Declaration: order in effect” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
FlightAware LLC v. Kalshi Inc. et al.
Voluntarily dismissed without prejudiceTrademark / prediction-market product dispute. August 11, 2026 — FlightAware voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity August 11, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “FlightAware LLC v. Kalshi Inc. et al.: voluntarily dismissed without prejudice” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
People of the State of New York, by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York v. Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc.
PendingCourt litigation. 2026-08-10 — the federal court rescheduled the initial conference to August 31; the remand motion remained pending.
Primary docket/order verified. Latest activity August 10, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “People of the State of New York, by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York v. Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc.: pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Coalition for Fair Markets v. Kentucky Department of Revenue
PendingCourt litigation. 2026-08-10 — 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.
Primary docket/order verified. Latest activity August 10, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Coalition for Fair Markets v. Kentucky Department of Revenue: pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
State of Wisconsin v. Kalshi, Inc., KalshiEX LLC, Kalshi Klear Inc., Kalshi Klear LLC, Kalshi Trading LLC, Coinbase entities, and Robinhood entities
Preliminary injunction motion pendingCourt litigation. 2026-08-07 — reply brief and supporting declaration were filed in the preliminary-injunction proceedings; no merits ruling was shown through August 26.
Primary docket/order verified. Latest activity August 7, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “State of Wisconsin v. Kalshi, Inc., KalshiEX LLC, Kalshi Klear Inc., Kalshi Klear LLC, Kalshi Trading LLC, Coinbase entities, and Robinhood entities: preliminary injunction motion pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
QCX, LLC v. Nessel et al.; on appeal, QCX, LLC v. Dana Nessel
On appealCourt litigation. 2026-08-05: 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.
Primary docket/order verified. Latest activity August 5, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “QCX, LLC v. Nessel et al.; on appeal, QCX, LLC v. Dana Nessel: on appeal” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Connecticut cease-and-desist orders to prediction market platforms
Cease-and-desist — enforcement enjoinedAdministrative / enforcement proceeding. August 2026
Docket/primary record linked. Latest activity August 1, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Connecticut cease-and-desist orders to prediction market platforms: cease-and-desist — enforcement enjoined” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
In the Matter of George Anthony Devolder Santos
Resolved — disgorgement, civil penalty, cease-and-desist order and three-year trading banAdministrative / enforcement proceeding. July 31, 2026
Official CFTC order verified. Latest activity July 31, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “In the Matter of George Anthony Devolder Santos: resolved — disgorgement, civil penalty, cease-and-desist order and three-year trading ban” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Azar Barrionuevo v. Adventure One QSS, Inc.
Active / pendingPrivate civil action involving prediction-market operator. July 31, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity July 31, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Azar Barrionuevo v. Adventure One QSS, Inc.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
State of Washington v. KalshiEX LLC
Final enforcement orderCourt litigation. 2026-07-16 — Ninth Circuit stayed briefing pending mandates in Nos. 25-7187, 25-7516, and 25-7831.
Primary docket/order verified. Latest activity July 16, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “State of Washington v. KalshiEX LLC: final enforcement order” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
In the Matter of KalshiEX LLC’s Notice Regarding Market Emergency Declaration and Emergency Rule Filing Pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.6(a)
Order in effectAdministrative / enforcement proceeding. 2026-07-14: CFTC stayed Kalshi’s emergency rule and directed it to fulfill open trades involving Michigan residents.
Primary docket/order verified. Latest activity July 14, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “In the Matter of KalshiEX LLC’s Notice Regarding Market Emergency Declaration and Emergency Rule Filing Pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.6(a): order in effect” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Vazquez et al. v. Kalshi Inc. et al.
Active / pendingPrivacy / tracking-technologies class action. July 9, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity July 9, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Vazquez et al. v. Kalshi Inc. et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Wood et al. v. Adventure One QSS, Inc. et al.
Active / pendingConsumer class / market-resolution action. July 6, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity July 6, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Wood et al. v. Adventure One QSS, Inc. et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US v. Raúl Torrez et al.
PendingCourt litigation. July 5, 2026
Docket/public record linked. Latest activity July 5, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US v. Raúl Torrez et al.: pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Gannon Ken Van Dyke
Pending; dismissal challenge reportedCFTC civil enforcement. July 1, 2026
Primary complaint verified. Latest activity July 1, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Gannon Ken Van Dyke: pending; dismissal challenge reported” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
National Association of Consumer Advocates v. Adventure One QSS, Inc. et al.
Active / pendingConsumer-protection action. June 26, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity June 26, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “National Association of Consumer Advocates v. Adventure One QSS, Inc. et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Kentucky v. KalshiEX LLC et al.
PendingCourt litigation. June 17, 2026
Docket/primary record linked. Latest activity June 17, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Kentucky v. KalshiEX LLC et al.: pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Austin et al. v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al.
Consolidated into ChehalConsumer class action — prediction-market contracts. June 17, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity June 17, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Austin et al. v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al.: consolidated into chehal” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Nevada ex rel. Gaming Control Board v. KalshiEX LLC
Preliminary injunction grantedCourt litigation. June 15, 2026
Docket/primary record linked. Latest activity June 15, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Nevada ex rel. Gaming Control Board v. KalshiEX LLC: preliminary injunction granted” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
James v. Kalshi, Inc. et al.
Active / pendingPrivacy / trade-data class action. June 15, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity June 15, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “James v. Kalshi, Inc. et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. d/b/a OG v. Letitia James et al.
PendingCourt litigation. June 12, 2026
Docket/public record linked. Latest activity June 12, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. d/b/a OG v. Letitia James et al.: pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Mazza v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al.
Consolidated into ChehalConsumer class action — prediction-market contracts. June 12, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity June 12, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Mazza v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al.: consolidated into chehal” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Collar et al. v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al.
Consolidated into ChehalConsumer class action — prediction-market contracts. June 12, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity June 12, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Collar et al. v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al.: consolidated into chehal” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
United States and CFTC v. State of Wisconsin et al.
PendingCFTC civil enforcement. June 10, 2026
Docket/primary record linked. Latest activity June 10, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “United States and CFTC v. State of Wisconsin et al.: pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Matthew Slovin v. KalshiEX LLC
Active / pendingArbitration / prediction-market contract dispute. June 9, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity June 9, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Matthew Slovin v. KalshiEX LLC: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
State of Arizona v. KalshiEX LLC
Prosecution enjoinedCourt litigation. 2026-06-04 — Ninth Circuit proceedings in No. 26-2978 were stayed pending mandates in three related appeals.
Primary docket/order verified. Latest activity June 4, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “State of Arizona v. KalshiEX LLC: prosecution enjoined” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
State of Arizona v. Kalshi Trading LLC
Prosecution enjoinedState criminal enforcement action. June 4, 2026 — related Ninth Circuit proceedings were stayed pending mandates in related appeals.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity June 4, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “State of Arizona v. Kalshi Trading LLC: prosecution enjoined” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
KalshiEX LLC v. Nevada Gaming Control Board — consolidated appeal
On appealCourt litigation. May 21, 2026
Docket/primary record linked. Latest activity May 21, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “KalshiEX LLC v. Nevada Gaming Control Board — consolidated appeal: on appeal” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Martin Trinidad et al. v. Kalshi, Inc. et al.
Active / pendingArbitration / prediction-market contract dispute. May 20, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity May 20, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Martin Trinidad et al. v. Kalshi, Inc. et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Roberts v. Kalshi, Inc. et al.
Active / pendingConsumer class action — sports prediction markets. May 11, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity May 11, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Roberts v. Kalshi, Inc. et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Agency cease-and-desist order
On appealAdministrative / enforcement proceeding. May 7, 2026
Docket/primary record linked. Latest activity May 7, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Agency cease-and-desist order: on appeal” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Nevada ex rel. Gaming Control Board v. Blockratize, Inc.
Enforcement pendingCourt litigation. May 2026
Docket/primary record linked. Latest activity May 1, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Nevada ex rel. Gaming Control Board v. Blockratize, Inc.: enforcement pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Ho-Chunk Nation v. KalshiEX LLC
Motion to dismiss deniedTribal litigation. May 1, 2026
Docket/primary record linked. Latest activity May 1, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Ho-Chunk Nation v. KalshiEX LLC: motion to dismiss denied” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Smith v. Kalshi Inc. et al.
Active / pendingConsumer class action — sports prediction markets. April 22, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity April 22, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Smith v. Kalshi Inc. et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Chehal et al. v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al.
Consolidated lead / activeConsumer class action — prediction-market contracts. April 22, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity April 22, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Chehal et al. v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al.: consolidated lead / active” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
People of the State of New York v. Gemini Titan, LLC
PendingCourt litigation. April 21, 2026
Docket/primary record linked. Latest activity April 21, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “People of the State of New York v. Gemini Titan, LLC: pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement cease-and-desist order
Enforcement enjoinedAdministrative / enforcement proceeding. April 6, 2026
Docket/primary record linked. Latest activity April 6, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement cease-and-desist order: enforcement enjoined” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
KalshiEX LLC v. Johnson et al.
Preliminary injunction deniedCourt litigation. April 2026
Docket/public record linked. Latest activity April 1, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “KalshiEX LLC v. Johnson et al.: preliminary injunction denied” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Robinhood Derivatives LLC v. Griffin et al.
PendingCourt litigation. April 1, 2026
Docket/public record linked. Latest activity April 1, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Robinhood Derivatives LLC v. Griffin et al.: pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Golan v. KalshiEX LLC et al.
Active / pendingConsumer class action — prediction-market resolution. March 24, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity March 24, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Golan v. KalshiEX LLC et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Willis v. Kalshi Inc. et al.
Active / pendingConsumer class action — sports prediction markets. March 20, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity March 20, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Willis v. Kalshi Inc. et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Kaiserman v. KalshiEX LLC et al.
Active / pendingConsumer class action — prediction-market contracts. March 20, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity March 20, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Kaiserman v. KalshiEX LLC et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Risch v. KalshiEX LLC et al.
Active / pendingConsumer class action — prediction-market resolution. March 5, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity March 5, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Risch v. KalshiEX LLC et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Reynolds v. Kalshi Inc. et al.
Active / pendingConsumer class action — sports prediction markets. February 20, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity February 20, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Reynolds v. Kalshi Inc. et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Yoon v. Blockratize, Inc. d/b/a Polymarket
Consolidated into Diego / terminatedConsumer class action — prediction-market contracts. February 11, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity February 11, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Yoon v. Blockratize, Inc. d/b/a Polymarket: consolidated into diego / terminated” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US v. Campbell et al.
PendingCourt litigation. February 9, 2026
Docket/public record linked. Latest activity February 9, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US v. Campbell et al.: pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Diego v. Blockratize, Inc. et al.
Consolidated lead / activeConsumer class action — prediction-market contracts. February 4, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity February 4, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Diego v. Blockratize, Inc. et al.: consolidated lead / active” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Goldman v. Novig Betting, Inc.
Dismissed without prejudicePrivate civil action involving prediction-market operator. February 3, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity February 3, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Goldman v. Novig Betting, Inc.: dismissed without prejudice” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Jennings v. Kalshi Inc. et al.
Consolidated into 1:25-cv-08585Consumer class action — sports prediction markets. January 29, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity January 29, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Jennings v. Kalshi Inc. et al.: consolidated into 1:25-cv-08585” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Hallman et al. v. KalshiEX LLC et al.
Consolidated into 1:25-cv-08585Consumer class action — sports prediction markets. January 13, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity January 13, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Hallman et al. v. KalshiEX LLC et al.: consolidated into 1:25-cv-08585” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Josephson et al. v. Kalshi, Inc. et al.
Consolidated into 1:25-cv-08585Consumer class action — sports prediction markets. January 8, 2026 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity January 8, 2026.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Josephson et al. v. Kalshi, Inc. et al.: consolidated into 1:25-cv-08585” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Pelayo et al. v. Kalshi Inc. et al.
Consolidated into 1:25-cv-08585Consumer class action — sports prediction markets. November 26, 2025 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity November 26, 2025.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Pelayo et al. v. Kalshi Inc. et al.: consolidated into 1:25-cv-08585” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
The State of Illinois ex rel. Lavery v. KalshiEX LLC et al.
Active / pendingGambling-loss recovery / Statute of Anne. November 24, 2025 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity November 24, 2025.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “The State of Illinois ex rel. Lavery v. KalshiEX LLC et al.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
In re Kalshi Sports Prediction Market Litigation (Yee originating action)
Consolidated lead / activeConsumer class action — sports prediction markets. October 16, 2025 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity October 16, 2025.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “In re Kalshi Sports Prediction Market Litigation (Yee originating action): consolidated lead / active” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
South Carolina Gambling Recovery LLC v. Kalshi Inc. et al.
StayedGambling-loss recovery / Statute of Anne. October 7, 2025 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity October 7, 2025.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “South Carolina Gambling Recovery LLC v. Kalshi Inc. et al.: stayed” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Georgia Gambling Recovery LLC v. Kalshi Inc. et al.
StayedGambling-loss recovery / Statute of Anne. October 2, 2025 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity October 2, 2025.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Georgia Gambling Recovery LLC v. Kalshi Inc. et al.: stayed” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Massachusetts Gambling Recovery LLC v. Kalshi Inc. et al.
StayedGambling-loss recovery / Statute of Anne. September 22, 2025 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity September 22, 2025.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Massachusetts Gambling Recovery LLC v. Kalshi Inc. et al.: stayed” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Illinois Gambling Recovery LLC v. Kalshi Inc. et al.
Remanded / state proceedingsGambling-loss recovery / Statute of Anne. September 19, 2025 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity September 19, 2025.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Illinois Gambling Recovery LLC v. Kalshi Inc. et al.: remanded / state proceedings” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
The State of Illinois ex rel. Lavery v. North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc.
Active / pendingFalse Claims Act / event-contract action. September 8, 2025 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity September 8, 2025.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “The State of Illinois ex rel. Lavery v. North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc.: active / pending” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Ohio Gambling Recovery LLC v. Kalshi, Inc. et al.
Remanded / state proceedingsGambling-loss recovery / Statute of Anne. August 28, 2025 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity August 28, 2025.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Ohio Gambling Recovery LLC v. Kalshi, Inc. et al.: remanded / state proceedings” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Kentucky Gambling Recovery LLC v. Kalshi Inc. et al.
Remanded / state proceedingsGambling-loss recovery / Statute of Anne. August 22, 2025 — originating action filed; primary docket verified August 28, 2026.
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28. Latest activity August 22, 2025.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Kentucky Gambling Recovery LLC v. Kalshi Inc. et al.: remanded / state proceedings” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
KalshiEX LLC v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Concluded appellate phase / foundational election-contract rulingPlatform challenge to state regulation. October 2, 2024
Published appellate opinion. Latest activity October 2, 2024.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “KalshiEX LLC v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission: concluded appellate phase / foundational election-contract ruling” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Clarke et al. v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (PredictIt litigation)
Appellate rulings issued; docket history requires final-status checkPlatform challenge to state regulation. March 1, 2024
Published Fifth Circuit opinions. Latest activity March 1, 2024.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “Clarke et al. v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (PredictIt litigation): appellate rulings issued; docket history requires final-status check” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
In re Blockratize, Inc. d/b/a Polymarket.com
Resolved — $1.4 million penalty and market wind-down orderAdministrative / enforcement proceeding. January 2022
Official CFTC order. Latest activity January 3, 2022.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “In re Blockratize, Inc. d/b/a Polymarket.com: resolved — $1.4 million penalty and market wind-down order” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Trade Exchange Network Limited and Intrade The Prediction Market Limited
Resolved — summary judgment and $3 million joint-and-several civil penaltyCFTC civil enforcement. July 5, 2018
Official CFTC disposition verified. Latest activity July 5, 2018.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Trade Exchange Network Limited and Intrade The Prediction Market Limited: resolved — summary judgment and $3 million joint-and-several civil penalty” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
In the Matter of Trade Exchange Network Limited
Resolved — $150,000 penalty, cease-and-desist order and undertakingsAdministrative / enforcement proceeding. October 4, 2005
Official CFTC order verified. Latest activity October 4, 2005.
Record type: Court or agency record. Cited as: “In the Matter of Trade Exchange Network Limited: resolved — $150,000 penalty, cease-and-desist order and undertakings” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Prediction-market legal matters tracked
149Distinct U.S. lawsuits, court cases and regulatory actions involving prediction markets: 135 lawsuits and 14 administrative or enforcement matters, across 30 states and DC.
Counted from the records on this page. Separately filed lawsuits stay separate even when coordinated or consolidated; appeals are linked to their original case; amicus briefs and interventions don’t add matters.
Record type: Court and agency records. Cited as: “DeFi Rate tracks 149 U.S. prediction-market legal matters” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Prediction-market lawsuits tracked
135Matters filed in a court: every record on the tracker that isn’t an administrative or enforcement action.
Counted from the records on this page. Separately filed lawsuits stay separate even when coordinated or consolidated; appeals are linked to their original case; amicus briefs and interventions don’t add matters.
Record type: Court and agency records. Cited as: “DeFi Rate tracks 135 prediction-market lawsuits in U.S. courts” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Administrative and enforcement actions tracked
14Cease-and-desist orders, agency orders and other regulatory actions taken outside a court.
Counted from the records on this page. Separately filed lawsuits stay separate even when coordinated or consolidated; appeals are linked to their original case; amicus briefs and interventions don’t add matters.
Record type: Court and agency records. Cited as: “DeFi Rate tracks 14 administrative or enforcement actions against prediction markets” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
States with a prediction-market legal matter
30States named in at least one record on the tracker. The District of Columbia is not counted as a state.
Counted from the records on this page. Separately filed lawsuits stay separate even when coordinated or consolidated; appeals are linked to their original case; amicus briefs and interventions don’t add matters.
Record type: Court and agency records. Cited as: “Prediction-market legal matters touch 30 states” (DeFi Rate litigation tracker).
Source documents (1)
Supreme Court petitions on sports event contracts
3Petitions asking the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve whether federal commodities law preempts state gambling law for sports event contracts.
New Jersey filed on Sep 2, 2026; Robinhood filed on Sep 9; North American Derivatives Exchange (Crypto.com) filed on Sep 11 and was docketed Sep 15 as No. 26-344. On Nov 9, the Court granted the requested extension, giving all respondents through Dec 7 to respond to the Nadex petition. The Court has granted none of the petitions.
Record type: Court records. Cited as: “Three petitions ask the Supreme Court to resolve the split over sports event contracts” (Court records via DeFi Rate).