In the Nevada Supreme Court, Kalshi’s recent attempt to stop a state mandate requiring it to restrict state residents from most of its trading activities was denied. A panel of three justices rejected the emergency motion, noting they were “not persuaded,” and the company may also be confronted with further litigation for not implementing the required geofencing by the court‑ordered deadline.
In Ohio, Kalshi filed a lawsuit against the state gaming regulator on Monday, building on earlier parallel arguments from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to seek a stay of the regulator’s penalty alleging that the firm operates an unlicensed sports‑betting business.
The following day, a Michigan court granted the state gaming regulators a temporary two‑week restraining order against Kalshi, prohibiting the company from offering, advertising, or facilitating sports betting in the state.
“Kalshi is targeting Michigan’s most vulnerable residents with sports betting disguised as investing, and without intervention, the harm will continue to worsen,” said Henry Williams, Executive Director of the Michigan Gaming Control Board, in a statement on Tuesday.
On a positive note for prediction platforms, the CFTC and its pro‑innovation chair, Mike Selig, are aggressively asserting that Kalshi and similar firms fall solely under the CFTC’s jurisdiction as the U.S. derivatives regulator. In its lawsuits against multiple states, the agency argues that the contracts traded in prediction markets are comparable to agricultural hedging contracts used by businesses to mitigate future crop price fluctuations.

