Kalshi refuses to stop Nevada operations despite judges’ orders
Prediction market platform Kalshi is refusing to stop offering contracts for its sports events in Nevada, despite a judge’s ruling, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
After US District Court Judge Andrew Gordon granted the dissolution of a preliminary injunction that allowed Kalshi to offer sports event contracts pending a court decision, Kalshi has continued to offer the contracts.
While the Nevada Gaming Control Board had reached agreements in principle with prediction market platforms Robinhood and Crypto.com to cease operations, Nevada Gaming Control Board Chairman Mike Dreitzer said the board had not reached a deal with Kalshi.
Dreitzer’s order said, “unlike both Robinhood and Crypto.com before them, Kalshi has declined to reach an agreement with the board to stop operating in Nevada pending further proceedings, despite (Monday’s) clear legal ruling and the fact that they were provided a very reasonable opportunity to do so. Kalshi instead has asked Judge Gordon to stay his ruling pending its appeal.”
After the Nevada Gaming Control Board issued the initial cease-and-desist order in May, Kalshi sued, which led to Gordon issuing the preliminary injunction.
On the East Coast, a complaint has been filed in a federal court in New York on behalf of thousands, accusing Kalshi of operating an illegal sports betting service.
Abi Bray brings strong researching skills to the forefront of all of her writing, whether it’s the newest slots, industry trends or the ever changing legislation across the U.S, Asia and Australia, she maintains a keen eye for detail and a passion for reporting.
Verticals:
Sectors:
Topics:
Dig Deeper
Related stories
The Backstory
Why the Kalshi fight in Nevada matters now
Kalshi’s clash with Nevada regulators comes amid a broader reckoning over where prediction markets end and sports betting begins. While the company is regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for certain event contracts, state gaming agencies increasingly see its sports-oriented products as wagers that belong under their purview. The Nevada case crystalizes that tension: regulators moved to halt sports contracts in the state, and a federal judge dissolved an earlier injunction that had temporarily allowed Kalshi to continue while litigation played out. The legal line-drawing in Las Vegas is reverberating across jurisdictions that are tightening rules around unlicensed or gray-market gambling.
That context helps explain why regulators are pushing for immediate compliance even as Kalshi appeals. A stop-order in the nation’s most established gambling market signals to other states that prediction markets cannot sidestep sports wagering laws by relabeling bets as “event contracts.” The enforcement push is also about stakes beyond legal semantics: age limits, responsible gaming tools, tax collection and market integrity all hinge on whether operators submit to state licensing.
The legal record is expanding quickly. In Massachusetts, the state’s top law enforcement officer has already taken Kalshi to court, underscoring momentum among regulators who view these offerings as sports bets in all but name.
East Coast escalation tests the ‘event contract’ defense
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell sued the platform, alleging it offers illegal sports wagering without a license and allows users as young as 18 to bet. The complaint describes products mirroring moneylines, point spreads and totals, arguing they should be regulated like sportsbook wagers. The action also points to marketing through consumer channels such as brokerage apps. For details of the case, see Massachusetts Attorney General sues Kalshi for illegal sports wagering operations, the state’s filed complaint and prior prevention efforts through a public-private youth sports betting partnership.
The Massachusetts filing frames the case as a consumer protection matter: if an operator functions like a sportsbook, it must meet the same guardrails on age verification, deposit limits, problem gambling messaging and taxation. The suit also underscores how quickly market access can scale via integrations with retail brokerage platforms, raising the risk that unlicensed offerings reach younger users who may see them as low-friction “trades” rather than bets.
Taken with Nevada’s posture, the message to prediction markets is clear: once products track the structure and cadence of sports wagers, state regulators will assert jurisdiction. That stance complicates Kalshi’s argument that federally supervised event contracts can include sports outcomes without triggering state gaming rules.
A widening campaign against gray-market models
Beyond prediction markets, regulators and mainstream suppliers are intensifying scrutiny of adjacent models that operate outside traditional licensing. A notable example is the sweepstakes casino sector, which relies on dual virtual currencies to mimic slot and table play. In a signal from within the industry, game developer Play’n Go said it will not supply these sites, calling the model a “gray area” that undermines consumer safeguards and state revenue regimes. Read more in Play’n Go refuses to supply sweepstakes casinos.
That stance matters because content pipelines can make or break a gaming vertical. If major studios restrict distribution to fully regulated channels, gray-market operators face thinner libraries and greater commercial pressure to seek licensure or exit targeted markets. It also aligns with a growing view among state officials that product parity without regulatory parity presents unacceptable risk.
Media and marketing channels are also in the crosshairs. Ontario’s regulator, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, urged media platforms to refuse ads from offshore gambling brands that have not joined the province’s regulated framework. The watchdog singled out Bodog as an example and framed the appeal as a way for publishers to support player safety while protecting the legal market. Details are in Ontario gambling regulator calls on media to stop promoting illegal sites.
Global enforcement underscores regulatory resolve
International moves mirror North American actions, signaling a coordinated tilt against operators targeting customers without a license. In New Zealand, the Department of Internal Affairs ordered offshore site 20Bet to stop advertising to residents after a new law barred overseas operators from accepting domestic bets. The case highlights the challenges of cross-border enforcement and the government’s push to curtail influencer promotions and YouTube ads that bypass local rules. See New Zealand orders offshore gambling site 20Bet to stop targeting residents.
In India, police in Goa dismantled an alleged illegal Indian Premier League betting ring that relied on mobile apps and sprawling payment infrastructure. Officers seized hundreds of phones and dozens of laptops, along with stacks of SIM cards and bank materials, underscoring the operational scale these networks can reach. The arrests spanned multiple locations and hinted at links to agents beyond the state. Coverage is at Goa police stop illegal IPL betting operation through online apps.
Taken together, these steps reflect a tightening consensus: jurisdictions want betting activity confined to licensed channels that meet local standards on advertising, age limits and responsible gaming. That steadily constricts the space for operators to market to residents from offshore hubs or to lean on legal ambiguities about product design.
The stakes for Kalshi and the wider market
The Nevada dispute is a crucial test of how far prediction markets can stretch beyond politics and macro events into mainstream sports without triggering state oversight. A court-backed halt, coupled with enforcement in Massachusetts, raises the cost of pursuing a dual-track approach that relies on federal commodity rules while bypassing state sportsbook licenses. It also increases pressure on distribution partners and media platforms that enable scale.
For licensed operators, stricter enforcement can level the playing field by corralling unlicensed competition that does not fund responsible gaming programs or pay state taxes. For regulators, it is a chance to assert that fast-growing, app-based betting must fit within established consumer-protection frameworks regardless of labels. And for consumers—especially younger users—the outcome will shape whether sports-linked “contracts” carry the same guardrails as traditional wagers.
The broader pattern is unmistakable: cross-jurisdictional coordination, upstream pressure on suppliers and media, and litigation designed to collapse gray areas into clearer bins of licensed versus not. Whether through injunctions, ad restrictions or criminal probes, regulators are moving to narrow the avenues for unlicensed sports betting and near substitutes. The Nevada front in Kalshi’s battle is simply the most visible one right now, but the legal and commercial exposure is widening.
