Kalshi suffered another legal setback Friday after a U.S. appeals court ruled that Ohio and Tennessee can regulate the prediction market operator’s sports contracts under state gambling laws.
The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a unanimous decision involving two cases brought by Kalshi against regulators in the two states. The court found that Kalshi’s sports event contracts do not qualify as swaps, placing them outside the federal regulatory framework that the company has relied on to operate its markets.
The ruling adds to a growing legal battle over whether prediction markets should operate primarily under federal financial regulation or state gambling laws.
State regulation gains momentum
The decision gives Ohio and Tennessee greater authority to pursue regulatory action against Kalshi’s sports markets. States have argued that these contracts resemble traditional sports wagers because users can trade contracts tied to the outcome of sporting events.
Reuters reported that the ruling comes amid a broader dispute over whether federally regulated prediction platforms can compete with state-licensed gambling operators without following local rules, including licensing and taxation requirements.
Kalshi has argued that its event contracts fall under federal oversight through the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. However, courts have now issued conflicting decisions across different jurisdictions.
A growing legal divide
The Sixth Circuit ruling follows a series of court decisions that have produced an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape.
The Ninth Circuit recently allowed Nevada to regulate Kalshi’s sports markets, while the Third Circuit previously reached a different conclusion in a case involving New Jersey. That split could increase pressure for the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the question of regulatory authority.
The legal uncertainty arrives as prediction markets expand beyond politics and into sports, finance and other event-based contracts. Kalshi has also explored products tied to financial markets, highlighting the broader business implications of the regulatory dispute.
For Kalshi and its competitors, the outcome could determine whether sports prediction contracts remain under a national financial framework or become subject to a patchwork of state gambling regulations.
