New York Attorney General sues Coinbase and Gemini Titan over prediction markets

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2026/03/06: Michigan Attorney General sues Kalshi over legality of prediction markets 2025/12/19: Coinbase sues three states over prediction market regulation 2025/09/13: Massachusetts Attorney General sues Kalshi for illegal sports wagering operations 2025/06/09: New York Attorney General halts 26 sweepstakes operations in the state

The Backstory

Why this fight is erupting now

New York’s lawsuit lands at the intersection of two fast‑moving trends: crypto‑aligned exchanges rolling out event markets at national scale and state regulators reasserting gambling authority where consumer bets, taxes and age checks are in play. The New York Attorney General’s action follows months of friction between prediction market operators and state agencies over whether “event contracts” are federally regulated financial products or state‑licensed wagers. That tension has sharpened as major brands tied to crypto and retail trading push deeper into sports, elections and pop‑culture outcomes, inviting comparisons to sportsbooks and sweepstakes casinos that face stricter rules.

Even before New York filed suit, other states were building a record that event markets look and behave like gambling when tied to sports outcomes. In Massachusetts, the attorney general alleged Kalshi’s sports contracts mirror moneylines, point spreads and totals and sought to halt its offerings while the case proceeds. Read that complaint detail in the report on Massachusetts’ lawsuit accusing Kalshi of illegal sports wagering. Michigan took a similar posture, telling a state court that Kalshi operates as an unlicensed sportsbook and asking for a permanent injunction; see coverage of the filing in Michigan’s suit over the legality of prediction markets. The Michigan complaint, lodged in Ingham County, is also public as a filing by the attorney general’s office (PDF).

These cases, and related notices from Nevada regulators that sports event contracts are wagers, created a backdrop for New York’s move. They also teed up a broader question: who calls the shots when financial platforms sell binary outcomes that consumers experience as bets.

A multistate test of jurisdiction

Coinbase and others have argued that event contracts fall under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s remit, not state gambling codes. That strategy turned proactive this year. Coinbase sued three states, saying they have no legal authority to regulate federally supervised prediction markets and warning more actions could follow as the company expands into the space. The challenge is laid out in Coinbase’s lawsuits against Michigan, Illinois and Connecticut. The filing signaled that large exchanges will not wait for cease‑and‑desist orders to define their businesses.

Kalshi, meanwhile, has taken its own fight to New York’s doorstep. The company filed suit claiming the state gaming commission is overreaching and that CFTC oversight is exclusive for its event‑based futures. For details on that federal complaint and its framing of state intervention as a crackdown on sports‑adjacent contracts, see Kalshi’s lawsuit challenging New York regulators. The company’s position underscores a national split: platforms depict themselves as markets that price information, while attorneys general and gaming boards focus on consumer outcomes and the resemblance to regulated betting.

Taken together, the dueling lawsuits are creating a patchwork of rulings that could define where finance ends and gambling begins. The stakes include who collects taxes, which agencies set age limits and loss controls, and whether national exchanges must win state‑by‑state approvals to list contracts that look like sports or elections wagering.

Kalshi at the center of the storm

Kalshi’s growth has made it a bellwether in this area. Its partnerships and listings have pulled it into the orbit of sports and crypto fintech, inviting scrutiny from multiple fronts. The Massachusetts attorney general’s office argues Kalshi allows 18‑ to 20‑year‑olds to wager when the state’s online sports betting age is 21 and lacks required safeguards. That push is consistent with Massachusetts’ broader focus on youth gambling harms and public health messaging, reflected in the attorney general’s Youth Sports Betting Safety Coalition. Michigan’s filing likewise frames prediction markets as a sportsbook by another name and emphasizes licensing pathways limited to commercial and tribal casinos, as covered in the story on Michigan’s action against Kalshi.

Kalshi says the opposite is true: that its contracts are financial instruments supervised by the CFTC, a view echoed by trading platforms that integrate access to event markets. That posture was reinforced as exchanges sought brand legitimacy through sports data tie‑ups and as retail brokerages explored offering event contracts alongside stocks and options. The legal outcome will determine whether those integrations are treated like adding a new asset class or launching a sports betting product.

New York’s sweepstakes crackdown as a precursor

New York’s posture on gray‑market gambling hardened before the current clash over event markets. In a separate campaign, the attorney general moved against online sweepstakes casinos that use virtual coins but allow cashouts, arguing they are illegal and unsafe. That earlier enforcement is detailed in coverage of New York halting 26 sweepstakes operations and in a related release from the attorney general’s office (press statement). State Sen. Joseph Addabbo Jr. followed with legislation to bar sweepstakes casinos, S5935A, signaling bipartisan appetite to close perceived gaps that let unlicensed operators reach consumers.

That sequence matters for prediction markets. It shows New York views novel betting‑like products through a consumer protection lens first, not a technology lens. The sweepstakes push built a template: declare the product illegal gambling, demand cessation, then backstop with legislation or expanded agency rules. Event markets that resemble sportsbooks in structure or marketing now face that template, even as operators argue federal preemption.

What to watch as the docket fills

The legal theories on both sides are now clear. States say event markets that settle on sports or similar contests are wagers subject to licensing, taxes and responsible‑gaming rules. Exchanges say they operate federally regulated markets that price information and provide hedging, not games of chance governed by state casinos law. The immediate milestones include motion practice in the New York cases and parallel actions in Massachusetts and Michigan. You can track the Massachusetts claims in the article on the state’s suit against Kalshi and see how Coinbase is seeking clarity through its own litigation in its multistate challenge.

The outcomes will shape whether national platforms need 50‑state strategies or can rely on federal permissions. They will also determine the competitive field for licensed sportsbooks and casinos that argue they face higher compliance costs. For New York, the choice is between allowing federally supervised event trading that touches sports and politics or insisting those products meet the same consumer protections and tax obligations as mobile sportsbooks. For exchanges, the question is whether to tailor listings and age gates state by state or win a ruling that cements preemption.

Either way, the back‑and‑forth is narrowing the gray area. As courts weigh jurisdiction and definitions, operators are learning that product design, marketing and age policies can tip a financial instrument into the realm of gambling in the eyes of state law. That line drawing will decide where prediction markets can grow and on whose terms.