Judge blocks Kalshi from offering sports betting to Massachusetts

A Suffolk County Superior Court judge has barred prediction-market operator Kalshi from allowing Massachusetts residents to place financial bets on sporting events via its online platform, issuing a preliminary injunction that freezes the company’s sports offerings while litigation proceeds.

Judge Christopher Barry-Smith granted the injunction at the request of Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, finding the Commonwealth was "likely to succeed on the merits" of its claim that Kalshi’s sports markets amount to unlicensed sports wagering under state law. In his written statement the judge wrote, "There is no real question that licensure, and the consequent oversight, of sports wagering operations in the state serves both public health and safety, and the Commonwealth’s financial interest." The order bars Kalshi from offering sports-related contracts to users located in Massachusetts unless the company obtains a state gaming license.

The injunction follows a suit filed by the attorney general in September alleging Kalshi has marketed sports wagering "under the guise of event contracts" without seeking oversight from the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. Campbell’s complaint flagged a consumer protection issue central to the state’s case: licensed gaming operators are prohibited from offering sports wagers to anyone under 21, while the state alleges Kalshi made products available to consumers as young as 18. Campbell framed the ruling as an enforcement victory, stating, "The Court has made clear that any company that wants to be in the sports gaming business in Massachusetts must play by our rules – no exceptions."

Kalshi disputes the state’s characterization and plans to appeal. The company contends that federal commodities law governs its platform because it operates as a registered contract market under the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and that such federal oversight preempts state gambling statutes. Judge Barry-Smith rejected that preemption argument at the preliminary stage, but the company has signaled it will press the issue in higher courts and in parallel litigation across the country.

The Massachusetts injunction is notable for its immediate effect; it is the first instance in which a state court has issued a preliminary order requiring a prediction-market platform to stop offering sports-related contracts to state residents pending resolution. Regulators in other states have seized on the ruling as persuasive authority in their own enforcement actions. The New York State Gaming Commission filed the Massachusetts decision as supplemental authority in its ongoing matter with Kalshi, and officials in jurisdictions including Nevada, New Jersey and Maryland have taken regulatory or enforcement steps against the company.

Legal observers say the Massachusetts order could tilt the broader multi-state fight. Gaming lawyer Daniel Wallach described the next federal decision as "imminent," underscoring how quickly outcomes in one forum could reverberate elsewhere. Tribal gaming interests and industry groups wary of unlicensed entrants welcomed the injunction, with one commentator identified only as "Siva" saying Massachusetts was taking a "firm stand against Kalshi, an unlicensed prediction market that is flagrantly violating state law and tribal sovereignty."

Beyond the immediate courtroom stakes, the dispute highlights a growing tension at the intersection of finance and gambling: digital platforms that blur definitions of commodities trading and sports betting are testing state regulatory regimes, tribal compacts and consumer protections. For Kalshi, the injunction curtails a potentially lucrative sports betting line of business in a populous state and raises questions about how prediction markets will structure products to navigate conflicting federal and state rules. For states and tribes, the case represents both a test of enforcement tools and a high-profile assertion of jurisdiction in an era of rapidly evolving online wagering.