A California court denied Underdog Fantasy’s request for a temporary restraining order against an expected opinion from the state Attorney General on paid fantasy contests. The judge said the opinion would be advisory and would not change state law, and that Underdog had delayed bringing its challenge.
The ruling leaves the Attorney General’s expected advisory opinion unblocked, while not itself changing California law.
The day’s most important stories, free. One email a day.
A Suffolk County Superior Court judge denied Kalshi’s request for an emergency stay in Massachusetts on Friday, according to the report. The order requires Kalshi to block state customers from sports event contracts after a 30-day implementation period ending 9 March; non-sports markets are unaffected. Kalshi may seek a stay from an appellate court judge.
Underdog Fantasy filed suit in Sacramento County Superior Court on 28 June seeking to block California Attorney General Rob Bonta from issuing anticipated guidance that could classify daily fantasy sports as illegal gambling. The company argues that the attorney general lacks authority to make that determination and requests a writ of mandate and temporary restraining order; the attorney general’s office has not commented.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta is expected to issue an opinion on whether fantasy sports platforms are illegal in the state, reportedly by 3 July. The question follows a state lawmaker’s argument that daily fantasy sports is a game of chance; tribal gaming groups have urged lawmakers to wait for the opinion before advancing legislation.
US District Judge Analisa Torres denied Kalshi’s request for a preliminary injunction to block New York from applying its gambling laws to the platform’s sports-event contracts. Torres ruled that the federal Commodity Exchange Act did not displace those state laws in this case.
A federal judge in Michigan denied Polymarket and Robinhood’s requests for preliminary injunctions against state gambling enforcement on 18 June. Judge Paul L. Maloney questioned whether federal derivatives law displaced states’ authority over sports-event contracts, but said the injunction decision was not a final ruling on their legality.