Prediction Markets Litigation Tracker: District Court Cases
Track significant prediction markets litigation at the U.S. district court level, including active cases, key developments, and emerging issues affecting the industry.
Last updated: November 2, 2026
Prediction markets — platforms where participants buy and sell contracts tied to future events — have gone from academic curiosity to front-page news in barely two years. The 2024 presidential election brought these platforms into the public view, and sports-related contracts have since become a principal driver of explosive growth. Global trading volume on leading platforms accelerated sharply through 2025 and 2026, attracting the attention of federal regulators, state gaming commissions, tribal gaming authorities, and the courts alike.
That growth has also generated a collision between regulatory paradigms. Courts are thus grappling with the following question — are prediction markets federally regulated derivatives or are they state-regulated gambling — or some combination of the two? The answer carries enormous consequences for platform operators, investors, sports leagues, gaming licensees, and the consumers who trade on these exchanges.
To help clients and stakeholders navigate this fast-moving area, Foley & Lardner’s Sports and Entertainment Group has developed a comprehensive Prediction Markets Litigation Tracker.
State of Ill. v. N. Am. Derivatives Exchange, Inc. d/b/a Crypto.com
Northern District of Illinois
No. 1:25-cv-10815
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
The Illinois AG sued Crypto.com, asserting its online sports event contracts violate Illinois anti-gaming laws. Crypto contended its contracts were subject to the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction and cannot be regulated by Illinois. The case was filed in state court, and Crypto removed it to federal court. (September 2025)
Current Case Status:
On September 16, 2026, the Judge remanded the case back down to the state court, terminating the case in federal court. (September 2025)
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. KalshiEx LLC
District of Massachusetts
No. 1:25-cv-12595
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Massachusetts filed suit against multiple prediction markets for violations of Massachusetts state gaming laws. The case was filed in state court, the prediction market defendants removed it to federal court, and Massachusetts filed a motion to remand it back to state court. (Oct. 2025)
Current Case Status:
On October 28, 2025, the judge granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand to send the case back to state court and terminate the federal case.
Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. v. Raoul, et al. AND
United States, et al. v. State of Ill., et al. AND
KalshiEx LLC v. Raoul, et al. AND
CFTC v. Smith AND CFTC v. Nowak
Northern District of Illinois
Case Nos.:
No. 1:25-cv-15406
No. 1:26-cv-03659
No. 1:26-cv-07363
No. 19 Civ. 6163 (same for Smith and Nowak)
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
In Coinbase’s suit and Kalshi’s suit against the Illinois AG, they both respectively sought to enjoin the Illinois AG and the other defendants from offering Illinois customers access to events contracts and requested declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction.
In State of Ill., the CFTC filed suit against Illinois AG and the Illinois Gaming Commission declaring that the CEA preempts enforcement of Illinois’ sports wagering laws as to event contracts traded on a DCM.
Current Case Status:
In State of Ill., Crypto.com and Coalition for Fair Markets both filed motions to intervene and joined the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction on July 14, 2026. On June 9, 2026, the State Defendants filed a motion to stay the case pending the Court’s ruling in Raoul, but this motion was withdrawn on July 14, 2026.
On October 2, 2026, the Judge granted in part and continued in part Coinbase’s, CFTC’s, and Kalshi’s motions for preliminary injunction, finding that many of the financial instruments at issue were likely swaps under the CEA; some Illinois law was likely preempted; and the prediction marktes were likely to succeed, having demonstrated they will be irreparably harmed without an injunction. 2026 WL 2969682 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 2, 2026).
CFTC v. WorldWideMarkets, Ltd., et al.
District of New Jersey
No. 21cv20715 (EP) (LDW)
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
CFTC sought civil penalties and equitable relief for violations of the CEA and to implement its regulations. CFTC moved for summary judgment and for a default judgment against defendant Thomas Plaut.
Current Case Status:
Judge granted in part and denied in part CFTC’s motion for summary judgment; granted in part and denied in part defendant Arthur Dembro’s cross-motion for summary judgment; and granted in part and denied in part the default judgment motion. The judge accepted CFTC’s request to postpone determinations on appropriate remedies until each of the defendants’ liability on each claim could be resolved, so the district court opinion did not discuss damages. 2025 WL 3771350 (D. N.J. Dec. 31, 2025)
Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. v. Ford, et al. AND
KalshiEx LLC v. Hendrick, et al.
District of Nevada
Case Nos.:
No. 2:26-cv-00256
No. 2:25-cv-00575
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Coinbase filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Nevada’s regulation of its operations, arguing its sports event contracts are “paradigmatic swaps” under the CEA that can be traded on federally regulated exchanges that are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. (February 2026) Kalshi similarly moved for a preliminary injunction on the same grounds (November 2025).
Current Case Status:
Judge denied Coinbase’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and dismissed the case without prejudice under the Younger Abstention Doctrine. This case is closed. 2026 WL 327316 (D. Nev. Feb. 7, 2026) The Judge also granted the defendants’ motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction so that it no longer has effect. 817 F.Supp.3d 1014 (D. Nev. Nov. 24, 2025).
In Hendrick, the judge denied the State defendants motion to seal without prejudice on May 6, 2026 and granted the Parties’ stipulation to stay discovery on September 23, 2026.
Keohohou, et al. v. N. Am. Derivatives Exchange, Inc., et al.
Southern District of Florida
No. 1:26-cv-20996
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
This is a nationwide class action lawsuit against Crypto.com for running an illegal online sports gambling platform while presenting it as a lawful “prediction market.” The class plaintiffs allege that Crypto.com violates multiple state laws prohibiting unlicensed sports betting entities.
Current Case Status:
On June 30, 2026, Plaintiff Kamana Keohohou filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice that was granted by the Court, and Keohohou was terminated from the case. On July 14, 2026, the parties completed briefing on Crypto.com’s motion to dismiss the complaint and motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. On November 1, 2026, the Court granted the motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration.
Lead Case:
Diego, et al. v. Blockratize, Inc., et al.
Consolidated Cases:
Yoon v. Blockratize, Inc. d/b/a Polymarket, et al. AND
San Diego, et al. v. Blockratize, Inc. d/b/a Polymarket, et al.
Southern District of New York
Lead Case No.:
1:26-cv-00973 (Diego)
Consolidated Case No.:
1:26-cv-01160 (Yoon)
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
This is a nationwide class action lawsuit against Polymarket for running an illegal online sports gambling platform while presenting it as a lawful “prediction market.” The class plaintiffs allege that Polymarket operates Polymarket.com, which is accessible to users across the country, and without the necessary approvals, the class plaintiffs claim Polymarket violates multiple state laws prohibiting unlicensed sports betting entities.
Current Case Status:
In Yoon, on June 12, 2026, the judge ordered that the cases are consolidated under the case name Diego v. Blockratize, Inc., 26-cv-00973.
By September 18, 2026, the parties fully briefed Polymarket’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending arbitration, which is currently awaiting a ruling.
Prediction Markets Action:
Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Griffin, et al. AND
Underdog Exchange DCM Inc., et al. v. Brown, et al. AND
N. Am. Derivatives Exchange, Inc. v. Brown, et al. AND
Ludlow Exchange LLC v. Brown, et al.
Western District of Washington
Case Nos.:
No. 3:26-cv-05311 (Griffin)
No. 2:26-cv-03200 (Underdog)
No. 2:26-cv-02579 (Crypto.com)
No. 3:26-cv-05888 (Ludlow)
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
The prediction markets in each of these cases sought injunctive relief enjoining the Washington AG and state defendants from regulating their involvement in transactions involving sports event contracts in Washington and declaratory relief that Washington law on such regulations violates the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.
Current Case Status:
All of these cases were filed by the prediction markets around the same time with the exception of the Griffin case, which was filed much earlier than the other cases. On September 16, 2026, the plaintiff in Underdog filed a Notice of Related Cases for these cases before the Court.
In Underdog, the Underdog plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction or, in the alternative, for a stay pending appeal on October 29, 2026.
In Ludlow Exchange LLC, the State defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 19, 2026.
In re: Robinhood Prediction Market Litig.
(three consolidated cases)
Northern District of California
Lead Case No.:
No. 3:26-cv-03415
Consolidated Case Nos.:
No. 3:26-cv-05610-EMC (Mazza)
No. 3:26-cv-05724-EMC (Collar)
No. 3:26-cv-05978-EMC (Austin)
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
This is a class action suit involving three consolidated cases where the plaintiffs are suing Robinhood for violations of California state gaming laws and Robinhood’s allegedly unlawful practices in operating an illegal sports gambling website. (Apr. 2026)
Current Case Status:
On September 25, 2026, the parties completed briefing on Robinhood’s motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation. On September 28, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a statement of recent decision related to the Sixth Circuit’s ruling against prediction markets in Schuler. The hearing on Robinhood’s motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation will take place on November 5, 2026.
Lead Case:
United States, et al. v. State of N.Y., et al.
Consolidated Cases:
People of The State of N.Y. v. Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. AND
People of The State of N.Y. v. KalshiEx LLC AND
N. Am. Derivatives Exchange, Inc. d/b/a OG v. James, et al. AND
Ludlow Exchange LLC v. James, et al.
Southern District of New York
Lead Case No.:
No. 1:26-cv-03404
Consolidated Case Nos.:
No. 1:26-cv-03300 (Coinbase)
No. 1:26-cv-06550 (KalshiEX LLC)
No. 1:26-cv-04980 (Crypto.com)
No. 1:26-cv-06676 (Ludlow)
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
The New York AG sued Coinbase and Polymarket, asserting their online sports event contracts violate New York anti-gaming laws. Coinbase and Kalshi contended their contracts were subject to the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction and cannot be regulated by New York. The cases were filed in state court, and Coinbase and Kalshi removed it to federal court. (Apr. 2026)
In Crypto.com’s and Ludlow’s actions against the New York AG, respectively sought to enjoin the New York AG from regulating their sports events contracts and requested declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction. (Aug. 2026)
Current Case Status:
In United States, et al. v. State of N.Y., et al., on September 7, 2026, Coinbase, an intervenor, filed a memorandum of law in support of the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. On September 23, 2026, the State defendants submitted a response to the plaintiffs’ letter regarding preemption as a result of the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Assad in late August 2026.
In Ludlow Exchange LLC, the parties completed briefing on Ludlow’s motion for preliminary injunction on September 24, 2026.
In N. Am. Derivatives Exchange, Inc., the State defendants filed a letter to the judge in response to Crypto.com’s letter from September 24, 2026.
There are motions to remand pending in most of these cases (except Ludlow Exchange LLC), which currently await a ruling from the Court in each case.
State of Wisc. v. Kalshi, Inc., et al. AND
State of Wisc. v. Foris Dax Markets, Inc., et al.
Western District of Wisconsin
Case Nos.:
No. 3:26-cv-00378 (Kalshi, Inc.)
No. 3:26-cv-00381 (Foris Dax Markets, Inc.)
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Consolidated Cases:
Wisconsin filed suit against multiple prediction markets (including Crypto.com) for violations of Wisconsin state gaming laws and for offering Wisconsin residents illegal sports event contracts. The case was filed in state court, Kalshi removed it to federal court, and Wisconsin filed a motion to remand it back to state court. (May 2026).
Current Case Status:
On May 19, 2026, Robinhood Derivatives, LLC filed a motion to transfer to the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which was opposed by Wisconsin on May 29, 2026. Robinhood filed a reply on June 10, 2026. On July 7, 2026, the parties completed briefing on Plaintiff’s motion to remand, and on August 7, 2026, the parties completed briefing on Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. Robinhood Markets, Inc. was terminated from the case on July 8, 2026. (W.D. Wisc. Apr. 24, 2026). On September 24, 2026, Crypto.com filed a motion to stay, which the State of Wisconsin opposed on September 30, 2026.
On August 7, 2026, in Kalshi, Inc., the State of Wisconsin filed its reply in support of the motion for preliminary injunction.
Smith v. Kalshi Inc., et al.
District of Massachusetts
No. 1:26-cv-12413
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
The individual plaintiff sued Kalshi, Robinhood, and other prediction markets, asserting their online sports event contracts violate Massachusetts anti-gaming laws. Kalshi, Robinhood, and the other prediction market defendants contended their contracts were subject to the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction and cannot be regulated by Massachusetts. (May 2026)
Current Case Status:
On July 10, the Parties completed briefing on Defendant Robinhood Derivatives, LLC’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the litigation. On August 7, 2026,the parties completed briefing on the prediction market defendants’ motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of New York, and on the same day, Kalshi filed a motion to sever. The motion to transfer venue/motion to sever has not been ruled on as of November 2, 2026.
Mescalero Apache Tribe, et al. v. Kalshi, Inc., et al.
District of New Mexico
No. 2:26-cv-01517
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
The plaintiffs, which are Tribal Nations, seek to imposing civil penalties on Kalshi for-operating Class III gaming activities on the plaintiffs’ respective Indian lands in violation of their respective tribal-state gaming compacts and their respective federally approved gaming ordinances as made enforceable under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. (May 2026)
Current Case Status:
On June 24, 2026, Kalshi filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint and motion for preliminary injunction. On September 4, 2026, the Parties completed briefing on the motion for preliminary injunction, and the Court held a hearing on the matter on September 23, 2026. On September 30, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a notice re response in opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction.
State of Rhode Island v. KalshiEx LLC, et al. AND
KalshiEx LLC v. Furcolo, et al.
District of Rhode Island
Lead Case No.:
No. 1:26-cv-00327
Associated Case:
No. 1:26-cv-00333 (State of Rhode Island)
No. 1:26-cv-00327 (Furcolo)
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
The Rhode Island AG sued Kalshi and Polymarket, asserting the prediction markets’ online sports event contracts violate Rhode Island anti-gaming laws. Kalshi filed its own suit against the Rhode Island AG contending that their contracts were subject to the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction and cannot be regulated by Rhode Island. The CFTC and the United States intervened in both of these cases. (May 2026)
Current Case Status:
The CFTC, as an intervenor, filed a complaint on June 26, 2026 and motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to enjoin Rhode Island’s enforcement of its anti-gaming laws. This came on for hearing on August 3, 2026. 2026 WL 2945865 (D. RI. June 18, 2026).
On October 5, 2026, the CFTC filed a motion for preliminary injunction. On October 7, 2026, the Furcolo case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Amy E. Moses.
Related Cases:
QCX LLC v. Ellison, et al. AND
KalshiEx LLC v. Ellison, et al. AND
United States, et al. v. State of Minn., et al.
District of Minnesota
Related Case Nos.:
No. 0:26-cv-02841 (QCX LLC)
No. 0:26-cv-02778 (KalshiEx LLC)
No. 0:26-cv-02661 (State of Minn.)
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Polymarket and Kalshi sought a declaratory judgment that Minnesota’s gaming laws are preempted under the CEA and violate the Supremacy Clause by usurping the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over sports event contracts. Polymarket and Kalshi also sought preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining regulation on Polymarket related to its prediction markets.
On May 19, 2026, the United States and the CFTC filed a complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief against the Minnesota state defendants.
Current Case Status:
On August 17, 2026, the defendants filed an answer to the complaint, and on August 18, 2026 the judge issued a notice of scheduling a Rule 16 conference, ordering the parties to meet and confer by October 6, 2026. (D. Minn. June 3, 2026)
Commonwealth of Ky. v. QCX LLC, et al. AND
Commonwealth of Ky. v. KalshiEx LLC, et al. AND
United States, et al. v. Commonwealth of Ky., et al.
Eastern District of Kentucky
Case Nos.:
No. 3:26-cv-00047 (QCX LLC)
No. 3:26-cv-00048 (KalshiEX LLC)
No. 3:26-cv-00049 (United States)
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Kentucky filed suit against multiple prediction markets for violations of Kentucky state gaming laws. The case was filed in state court, the prediction market defendants removed it to federal court, and Kentucky filed a motion to remand it back to state court. (June 2026)
In response to Kentucky’s suit, days later, the US and CFTC filed suit against the Kentucky state defendants to enjoin them from enforcing Kentucky’s anti-gaming laws against the prediction markets. Specifically, they challenge Kentucky’s 14.25% prediction-market tax. (June 2026)
Current Case Status:
On September 21, 2026, the parties finished briefing Coalition of Fair Markets’ motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On October 1, 2026, the judge ordered that the plaintiff’s motion for remand was referred to a magistrate judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation.
In the KalshiEX LLC case, on November 2, 2026, the judge granted the joint motion to extend the deadline to answer the complaint.
In the QCX LLC case, on August 31, 2026, the Parties completed briefing on the Commonwealth of Kentucky’s motion to remand, and on October 14, 2026, the magistrate judge recommended in the QCX LLC and KalshiEx LLC cases that the motions to remand in both cases be granted.
Consolidated Cases:
In re Kalshi Sports Prediction Market Litig. AND
Reynolds v. Kalshi, Inc., et al. AND
Roberts v. Kalshi, Inc., et al. AND
Pelayo, et al. v. Kalshi, Inc., et al. AND
Hallman, et al. v. KalshiEx LLC, et al. AND
Risch, et al. v. KalshiEx LLC, et al. AND
Yee v. KalshiEx LLC, et al. AND
Jennings v. Kalshi, Inc., et al. AND
Lee, et al. v. Blockratize, Inc., et al.
District of Oregon
Western District of Kentucky
Central District of California
Southern District of New York
Consolidated Cases:
No. 3:26-cv-00336 (D. Or.) – Reynolds (pre-transfer)
No. 1:25-cv-08585 (SDNY) – Yee
No. 3:26-cv-00336 (W.D. Ky.) – Roberts (pre-transfer)
No. 2:26-cv-02390 (C.D. Cal.) – Risch (pre-transfer)
No. 1:26-cv-01924 (SDNY) – Jennings
No. 1:25-cv-09913 (SDNY) – Pelayo
No. 1:26-cv-00317 (SDNY) – Hallman
No. 1:26-cv-07572 (SDNY) – Lee
No. 1:26-cv-04734 (SDNY) – Risch (post-transfer)
No. 1:26-cv-05238 (SDNY) – Reynolds (post-transfer)
No. 1:26-cv-05246 (SDNY) – Roberts (post-transfer)
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
These cases are a mix of individual actions and class actions against Kalshi and other prediction markets for violations of state gaming laws that were collectively transferred to the Southern District of New York to be consolidated.
Current Case Status:
On June 30, 2026, Kalshi filed a memo endorsement letter for the Court to accept the Reynolds matter as related to the consolidated cases currently before the Court.
In Lee, on September 3, 2026, the plaintiffs filed the complaint, and on September 4, 2026, magistrate judge Jennifer Willis was designated to handle matters that may be referred in this case.
Ludlow Exchange LLC v. Campbell, et al.
District of Massachusetts
No. 1:26-cv-13615
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Ludlow sought declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of Massachusetts’ regulation on it as a prediction market by arguing that its products are derivatives rather than related to “gambling,” which is what the defendants argue. (Aug. 2026)
Current Case Status:
On August 24, 2026, the judge granted the joint motion to stay proceedings and for voluntary dismissal, staying the case until Kalshi has exhausted its state appellate rights with respect to its appeal of the preliminary injunction in Massachusetts state court. This case is dismissed without prejudice.
QCX LLC v. Torrez, et al. AND
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc., et al. v. Torrez, et al. AND
United States, et al. v. State of New Mexico, et al. AND
State of New Mexico v. Kalshi, Inc., et al.
District of New Mexico
No. 1:26-cv-02100 (QCX LLC)
No. 1:26-cv-02935 (Underdog)
No. 1:26-cv-01912 (United States)
No. 1:26-cv-01857 (Kalshi, Inc.)
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
The prediction markets sought declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of New Mexico’s regulation on them as prediction markets by arguing that their products are derivatives rather than related to “gambling,” which is what the defendants argue. (June 2026)
Conversely, in Kalshi, Inc., the New Mexico AG sued Kalshi, asserting that Kalshi’s online sports event contracts violate New Mexico anti-gaming laws. Kalshi contended its contracts were subject to the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction and cannot be regulated by New Mexico. (June 2026)
Current Case Status:
In QCX LLC, on August 14, 2026, the judge granted a motion to stay proceedings. (D. N.M. Aug. 14, 2026) As of November 2, 2026, the case remains stayed.
In Underdog, the plaintiff filed the complaint on September 8, 2026. On October 29, 2026, the case was reassigned to Judge Sarah M. Davenport as the trial judge.
In Kalshi, Inc., on August 18, 2026, the Parties completed briefing on the State of New Mexico’s motion to remand the case back to state court.
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc., et al. v. Wilson, et al.
Northern District of Ohio
No. 1:26-cv-02169
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Underdog sought declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction from Ohio’s AG to enjoin enforcement of Ohio’s regulation on it as a prediction market. (Sept. 8, 2026)
Current Case Status:
On September 8, 2026, Underdog filed its complaint. On October 16, 2026, Underdog filed a motion for preliminary injunction or, in the alternative, to stay pending appeal. The Court ordered on October 26, 2026, that the State defendants’ response is due on November 16, 2026, and Underdog’s reply in support of the motion is due on December 7, 2026.
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc., et al. v. Kaul, et al.
Western District of Wisconsin
No. 3:26-cv-00858
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Underdog sought declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction from Wisconsin’s AG to enjoin enforcement of Wisconsin’s regulation on it as a prediction market. (Sept. 8, 2026)
Current Case Status:
On September 8, 2026, Underdog filed its complaint, and the defendants have yet to respond as of November 2, 2026.
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc., et al. v. Campbell, et al.
District of Massachusetts
No. 1:26-cv-14098
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Underdog sought declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of Massachusetts’ regulation on it as a prediction market by arguing that Massachusetts is violating the Supremacy Clause and that Underdog’s products are derivatives rather than related to “gambling,” which is what the defendants argue. (Sept. 8, 2026)
Current Case Status:
On September 8, 2026, Underdog filed its complaint, and on September 29, 2026 the Parties filed a joint motion to stay proceedings. On October 21, 2026, the Court granted the joint motion to stay proceedings, and on October 26, 2026, the Court granted the joint motion for extension of time to file response/reply re motion for preliminary injunction or, in the alternative, motion to stay pending appeal.
United States, et al. v. State of Ariz.
District of Arizona
No. 2:26-cv-06101
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
This is an executive action litigation where the US and CFTC filed suit against the Arizona state defendants to enjoin them from enforcing Arizona’s anti-gaming laws against the prediction markets. (Sept. 2026)
Current Case Status:
On August 27, 2026, the United States filed its complaint. On October 30, 2026, the Arizona State defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Cty. of Baltimore v. KalshiEx LLC, et al. AND
Cty. of Baltimore, ex. rel. Ebony Thompson v. QCX LLC et al.
(cases filed on the same day involving the same parties)
District of Maryland
Case Nos.:
No. 1:26-cv-03217 (KalshiEX LLC)
No. 1:26-cv-03253 (QCX LLC)
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
The City of Baltimore filed suit against multiple prediction markets for violations of Maryland state gaming laws on behalf of Baltimore consumers harmed by the prediction markets’ allegedly unlawful practices. The cases were filed in state court, Kalshi and Polymarket removed it to federal court, and the City of Baltimore filed a motion to remand the cases back to state court. (Sept. 2026).
Current Case Status:
On September 16, 2026, the City of Baltimore filed a motion to remand the case back to state court. On October 1, 2026, the judge issued an order staying the case for the earlier of either four months from the date of the order or when the Supreme Court decides the last of the pending cert petitions on the prediction market issues.
On October 21, 2026, in QCX LLC, Polymarket filed its response in opposition re motion to remand to state court.
On October 27, 2026, in KalshiEX LLC, the judge issued a marginal order approving the notice of voluntary dismissal as to Webull Corporation and Webull Financial LLC as defendants.
Hughes v. DraftKings Inc., et al.
District of South Carolina
No. 2:26-cv-03838
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
The individual plaintiff sued multiple prediction markets, asserting that the prediction markets’ online sports event contracts violate South Carolina anti-gaming laws. The prediction market defendants contended their contracts were subject to the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction and cannot be regulated by South Carolina. The case was originally filed in state court, and the defendants removed it to federal court. (Sept. 2026)
Current Case Status:
On September 25, 2026, the Court granted a time extension on the plaintiff’s motion to remand until October 15, 2026. On October 29, 2026, the prediction market defendants filed a response in opposition re motion to remand to state court.
Willis v. Kalshi, Inc., et al.
Northern District of Alabama
No. 3:26-cv-00722
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
The individual plaintiff filed suit against Kalshi for violations of Alabama state gaming laws on behalf of Alabama residents harmed by the Kalshi’s allegedly unlawful practices. The case was filed in state court, Kalshi removed it to federal court, and the plaintiff filed a motion to remand it back to state court. (Sept. 2026).
Current Case Status:
On September 8, 2026, the judge granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand, sending the case back to Alabama state court and terminating the federal case. 2026 WL 2641826 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 8, 2026)
Moran v. Kalshi Inc., et al.
Eastern District of Virginia
No. 1:26-cv-03008
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
The individual plaintiff sued Kalshi, asserting its online sports event contracts violate Virginia anti-gaming laws. Kalshi contended their contracts were subject to the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction and cannot be regulated by Virginia. (Sept. 2026)
Current Case Status:
On September 10, 2026, the plaintiff filed the original complaint, and on September 30, 2026, he filed an amended complaint. Kalshi has not yet responded to the amended complaint as of November 2, 2026.
KalshiEx LLC v. Knudsen, et al.
District of Montana
No. 6:26-cv-00028
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Kalshi sued several Montana State Defendants, alleging the State “intru[ded] into the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate derivatives trading on exchanges overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission” and seeking declaratory relief and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. Kalshi filed a motion for preliminary injunction nine days after filing its complaint, and on the same day, the parties jointly filed a stipulated motion to stay the case deadlines.
Current Case Status:
On August 27, 2026, the judge denied Kalshi’s motion for preliminary injunction without prejudice and the parties stipulated motion to extend the stay, lifting the stay and requiring the defendants to answer or otherwise respond to Kalshi’s complaint. On September 21, 2026, the judge dismissed the case without prejudice and ruled that all pending motions were moot and all deadlines were vacated. 2026 WL 2532160 (D. Mon. Aug. 27, 2026)
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc., et al. v. Skrmetti, et al.
Middle District of Tennessee
No. 3:26-cv-01461
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Underdog sought declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction from Tennessee’s AG to enjoin enforcement of Tennessee’s regulation on it as a prediction market. (Oct. 2026)
Current Case Status:
On October 13, 2026, Underdog filed its complaint in this case, and on October 14, 2026, the case was referred to a magistrate judge for customized case management.
N. Am. Derivatives Exchange, Inc. v. Hanaway, et al. AND
Ludlow Exchange, LLC v. Hanaway, et al.
Western District of Missouri
Eastern District of Missouri
Case Nos.:
No. 4:26-cv-00969 (Crypto.com – Western District)
No. 4:26-cv-01780 (Ludlow – Eastern District)
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
In the Western District Crypto.com, sought declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of Missouri’s regulation on them as prediction markets. In the Eastern District, Ludlow sought the same. (Oct. 2026)
Current Case Status:
On October 16, 2026, Crypto.com and Ludlow filed their respective complaints in each case.
QCX, LLC v. Wilson, et al.
Southern District of Ohio
No. 2:26-cv-01502
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Polymarket sought declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction from Ohio’s AG to enjoin enforcement of Ohio’s regulation on it as a prediction market. (Oct. 21, 2026)
Current Case Status:
On October 21, 2026, Polymarket filed its complaint in this case. As of November 2, 2026, the State defendants have not responded to the complaint.
KalshiEx LLC v. Murril, et al.
Western District of Louisiana
No. 1:26-cv-04476
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Kalshi sought declaratory relief and a permanent injunction from Louisiana’s AG to enjoin enforcement of Louisiana’s regulation on it as a prediction market. (Oct. 23, 2026)
Current Case Status:
On October 23, 2026, Kalshi filed its complaint in this case. As of November 2, 2026, the State defendants have not responded to the complaint.