Kalshi and Polymarket operate in India despite ban
Prediction market operators Kalshi and Polymarket have continued to allow users in India to register and trade on their platforms despite warnings from India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology that such activity is banned.
According to Bloomberg, in a letter published on the ministry’s website, the agency said users were accessing “illegal and blocked prediction market and online betting platforms” in violation of “domestic prohibitions.”
It specifically named “Polymarket and a few other similar sites” and said that internet service providers were expected to block access.
The letter was addressed to virtual private network providers, which were being used to bypass restrictions, according to the ministry. It warned that providers could face “exposure to consequential legal action” if they permitted access.
The warning came ahead of India’s Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, which took effect on 1 May.
Kalshi’s legal counsel, Valeria Vouterakou, said that the platform has been in contact with Indian authorities and has not been instructed to cease operations, saying, “we will comply with the government’s requests should they make them.”
A Polymarket spokesperson added that the company is “committed to complying with applicable laws and regulations across all jurisdictions in which it operates. We maintain geoblocking measures to restrict access in jurisdictions where our services are not permitted, and we continuously evaluate and update those measures.”
Charlotte Capewell brings her passion for storytelling and expertise in writing, researching, and the gambling industry to every article she writes. Her specialties include the US gambling industry, regulator legislation, igaming, and more.
Verticals:
Sectors:
Topics:
Dig Deeper
Related stories
The Backstory
Pressure builds as India draws a line
India’s tech ministry escalated its crackdown on online prediction markets this spring, warning internet providers and virtual private network companies that access to “illegal and blocked prediction market and online betting platforms” must be cut or face legal risk. The move preceded the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act taking effect on May 1, signaling New Delhi’s intent to draw clearer boundaries between permissible skill-based gaming and prohibited betting. While the ministry singled out Polymarket by name, it also targeted similar sites and the tools users rely on to bypass blocks. The warning sharpened a longstanding gray area around event contracts and forecasting markets that operate across borders and pay out in crypto. Bloomberg later reported the platforms had continued operating for Indian users despite the government’s stance, underscoring both the jurisdictional complexity and the limits of conventional blocking tactics (Bloomberg coverage of India’s warning to prediction markets).
Platform responses reflected that legal ambiguity. Polymarket said it uses geoblocking and updates controls as needed. Kalshi said it had been in contact with Indian authorities and would comply with specific requests if ordered. The gap between policy and practice now defines the immediate risk for operators and users: India can raise the cost of evasion, but uneven enforcement and decentralized payments make a clean cutoff difficult.
Geo-blocks meet workarounds
The India standoff mirrors outcomes elsewhere where bans meet digital workarounds. In Singapore, authorities have blocked Polymarket since 2024, yet activity tied to the city-state has risen on the platform, with wagers clustering around marquee events and even daily temperatures. The country’s regulators acknowledged no block is foolproof and warned that evasion carries fines or possible jail time under the Gambling Control Act. Still, the volume persisted, including six-figure totals on weather markets, with payouts in cryptocurrency that make supervision harder to trace for authorities like the Gambling Regulatory Authority and the police. Those dynamics were detailed in reporting on how Polymarket saw increased Singapore-related bets despite being blocked.
The pattern holds in the United States under state-level prohibitions. In Mississippi, where mobile sports betting is barred except on casino property, a University of Mississippi survey found nearly 60% of college students who gambled in the past year placed online bets with “legal” sportsbooks anyway. Many used VPNs, others routed wagers through friends or family. Researchers estimated thousands of students faced serious gambling issues, highlighting a public health cost regulators must weigh alongside market control. The study arrived after cease-and-desist orders to illegal operators and shows how access and perception of legitimacy blur when national brands operate in neighboring states or offshore sites mimic them. The findings were published in reporting on how Mississippi students bet online despite a statewide mobile ban.
Enforcement whack-a-mole on platforms and ads
Even when platforms are blocked, advertising channels can keep demand alive. Indonesia’s ban on online betting and ads has produced a cat-and-mouse contest with promoters that disguise gambling pitches as benign content on Meta apps. An AFP investigation found dozens of ads that looked like gaming tips or even health posts, but redirected to wagering portals. Users said the ads were intrusive and accessible to minors. Authorities have removed millions of gambling posts and arrested influencers, but the flow continues, reflecting how ad tech and cross-border spending can outpace takedowns. Lawmakers have pushed for tighter rules as the underground economy persists. The shifting tactics were outlined in a report on how igaming ads targeted Indonesian Meta users despite a ban.
For India, these examples clarify the stakes. Geoblocks and ISP orders can slow access, but encryption, crypto payouts and fragmented ad ecosystems continue to route users to offshore markets. Warning VPN providers, as India did, raises friction but is unlikely to be decisive without parallel cooperation from app stores, payment partners and large platforms hosting promotion. Each additional choke point increases compliance burdens and legal exposure, yet the core products—simple binary markets tied to real events—remain shareable, discussable and hard to distinguish from news or entertainment in feeds.
Contrast with regulated market design
Other jurisdictions have tried to contain gambling demand through narrow, regulated channels. Maine moved to legalize online casino gaming while handing exclusive rights to the state’s Wabanaki Nations, aligning new digital revenue with tribal economic sovereignty. The structure caps operators at four platforms, one per tribe, similar to the state’s sportsbook model. Supporters argued it would deliver “life-changing revenue” to tribal communities and bring activity onshore under consumer protections. The pivot was detailed in coverage of how the Wabanaki Nations won exclusive igaming rights in Maine.
In mature U.S. markets, incumbents are investing in experiences that mirror casino play but operate under strict licensing. Caesars partnered with Evolution to open a branded live dealer studio in Pennsylvania, streaming table games with high and low limits to verified in-state users. The approach substitutes geofencing and identity checks for blunt access bans, aiming to capture demand within a taxable, auditable framework that can fund treatment programs and integrity monitoring. Details of the rollout appeared in reporting on Caesars’ live dealer studio launch in Pennsylvania.
What comes next for prediction markets
Prediction markets complicate this regulated template. Unlike casino games, their subject matter extends to elections, geopolitics and weather. Contracts can implicate speech and financial regulation, and cross-border liquidity is a feature. India’s new law aims to delineate between skill and chance, but event-betting operators can argue they are information markets. Authorities counter with consumer risks, the potential to spur manipulation, and money laundering concerns tied to crypto payouts. Singapore’s data point—rising volumes after blocks—suggests users motivated by novelty or perceived edge will seek paths around barriers. Mississippi’s survey shows bans do not preclude betting, especially among digital natives.
India’s decision to warn intermediaries signals a widening perimeter, from platforms to the tools that enable access. If that perimeter expands to app stores or payment rails, operators will face sharper choices about geo-specific offerings or full exits. Conversely, if prediction market firms win limited, ringfenced approvals in some jurisdictions, they may showcase compliance models that undercut the case for total bans. For now, the global picture is fragmented: targeted crackdowns in places like India and Singapore coexist with regulated on-ramps in parts of the United States. The result is a test of whether policy can channel demand without pushing it deeper into the gray web of VPNs, offshore wallets and disguised ads.
