Kalshi filed a federal lawsuit against Montana, arguing that the state broke an agreement to pause enforcement while its Nevada case proceeded. The company says federal oversight of its event contracts prevents Montana from applying state gambling rules; it is seeking temporary and permanent relief from state action.
The lawsuit may determine whether Montana can apply state gambling rules to Kalshi’s event contracts.
The day’s most important stories, free. One email a day.
Reportedly, the federal government sought to prevent Connecticut from enforcing measures against prediction markets. Robinhood also sought to join the legal proceedings.
Connecticut's gambling laws should not be used against prediction markets, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is asking a federal judge to stop the state from doing so. A preliminary injunction motion was submitted by the agency on 11 September, court records show, in the US District Court for the District of Connecticut.
Kalshi accused Washington State authorities of selectively enforcing gambling rules against its platform while leaving competitors, including Polymarket, unchallenged, according to a letter sent to the Washington State Gambling Commission. Washington’s attorney general’s office rejected the accusation and said its action was based partly on Kalshi’s size in the state. A King County judge had issued interim restrictions on Kalshi’s event contracts in August, while allowing contracts in several other categories to continue.
Kalshi sought relief from state enforcement as prediction market disputes increasingly reached federal appeals courts. Crypto.com agreed to wait for a Ninth Circuit ruling, while the CFTC moved towards new sector rules.
It was reported that a federal judge ruled Utah can enforce its gambling laws against prediction markets. The ruling concerns platforms including Kalshi and Polymarket.
It was reported that a Wisconsin federal judge refused CFTC’s request to block state gambling enforcement against prediction market operators. The court rejected federal pre-emption arguments and found sports event contracts unlikely to qualify as swaps.