A Nevada court has kept Kalshi barred from the state’s event-contract market while litigation proceeds.
Summary
– A Nevada judge sided with state regulators, saying Kalshi’s event contracts are equivalent to sports betting.
– The injunction extends a Nevada ban through April 17 while the court considers longer-term restrictions.
– The dispute highlights tensions between state gambling laws and federal claims of CFTC oversight over prediction markets.
The ruling followed a request from the Nevada Gaming Control Board to stop Kalshi from offering contracts tied to sports, elections and entertainment outcomes to Nevada residents.
At a Carson City hearing, Judge Jason Woodbury granted a preliminary injunction that prevents Kalshi from allowing Nevada residents to trade event contracts without a gaming license. The order prolongs a temporary restraining order first issued on March 20 and will remain in effect through April 17 as the court takes the next steps in the case.
Kalshi has maintained its contracts are financial “swaps” governed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, arguing federal law places these products under CFTC jurisdiction. The court rejected that argument. Woodbury said purchasing a contract tied to a game outcome is indistinguishable from placing a sportsbook wager: “No matter how you slice it, that conduct is indistinguishable.”
The decision is the first instance of a state securing an active, court-enforced ban against Kalshi, giving Nevada an early legal victory as other states scrutinize prediction markets linked to sports and similar events. Utah lawmakers recently passed a bill classifying proposition-style in-game bets as gambling, seeking to block such offerings on platforms including Kalshi and Polymarket.
The case also unfolds as the CFTC defends its asserted role overseeing prediction markets. CFTC Chairman Michael Selig has said the agency is prepared to litigate to protect its jurisdiction. At an industry conference he described prediction markets as “truth machines,” arguing that markets where participants risk money on outcomes can provide clearer signals about future events than polls — a view that intensifies the clash between federal regulatory claims and state gambling statutes.