Michigan court blocks Kalshi sports event contracts in state dispute
Michigan has moved to curb sports-related prediction market activity as a state court bars Kalshi from letting residents place financial bets on sporting events. The order adds immediate compliance pressure on the operator after the state's attorney general argued that the practice violates Michigan gaming law.
Highlights
- Michigan Judge Rosemarie Aquilina issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting Kalshi from allowing Michigan residents to bet on sporting events.
- Kalshi faces a $120,000 daily fine if it does not comply with the court's geolocation requirements for restricting access to its platform in Michigan.
- The case underscores rising legal and compliance risks for event-based financial contracts as state-level regulators like Michigan's attorney general challenge prediction market platforms.
Court order imposes immediate restrictions
As reported by Reuters, Ingham County Circuit Court Judge Rosemarie Aquilina on Monday issues a temporary restraining order against Kalshi at the request of Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel.The ruling blocks the prediction market operator from continuing to allow people in Michigan to place financial bets on sporting events. Aquilina also says she will fine Kalshi $120,000 for each day it does not comply with the geolocation requirements set out in her order.
Regulatory pressure on event-based markets
The case centers on whether Kalshi's sports-related contracts amount to activity that falls under state gambling restrictions. Michigan's attorney general accuses the company of violating state gaming law by offering the products to residents.The order marks a fresh point of tension between state-level gaming enforcement and prediction market platforms that offer event-based financial contracts. For operators in the sector, the Michigan action highlights growing legal and compliance risks tied to sports-linked products in individual U.S. states.
Our earlier article on the Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. Slaughter explained how the decision could expand presidential power over independent regulators by weakening “for-cause” removal protections. We noted that easier dismissal of agency officials could shift enforcement priorities across sectors, adding uncertainty for firms operating in heavily regulated markets.
-
Afghanistan
-
Albania
-
Algeria
-
Angola
-
Argentina
-
Armenia
-
Australia
-
Austria
-
Azerbaijan
-
Bahamas
-
Bahrain
-
Bangladesh
-
Belarus
-
Belgium
-
Bolivia
-
Botswana
-
Brazil
-
Brunei
-
Bulgaria
-
Cambodia
-
Cameroon
-
Canada
-
Chile
-
China
-
Colombia
-
Congo
-
Costa Rica
-
Cote d'Ivoire
-
Croatia
-
Cuba
-
Cyprus
-
Czechia
-
DR Congo
-
Denmark
-
Dominican Republic
-
Ecuador
-
Egypt
-
El Salvador
-
Estonia
-
Eswatini
-
Ethiopia
-
Finland
-
France
-
Georgia
-
Germany
-
Ghana
-
Greece
-
Haiti
-
Hong Kong
-
Hungary
-
India
-
Indonesia
-
Iran, Islamic republic
-
Iraq
-
Ireland
-
Israel
-
Italy
-
Jamaica
-
Japan
-
Jordan
-
Kazakhstan
-
Kenya
-
Korea
-
Kuwait
-
Kyrgyzstan
-
Laos
-
Latvia
-
Lebanon
-
Lesotho
-
Libya
-
Lithuania
-
Luxembourg
-
Madagascar
-
Malaysia
-
Malta
-
Mauritius
-
Mexico
-
Moldova
-
Mongolia
-
Montenegro
-
Morocco
-
Mozambique
-
Myanmar
-
Namibia
-
Nepal
-
Netherlands
-
New Zealand
-
Nigeria
-
North Macedonia
-
Norway
-
Oman
-
Pakistan
-
Palestine
-
Panama
-
Papua New Guinea
-
Paraguay
-
Peru
-
Philippines
-
Poland
-
Portugal
-
Puerto Rico
-
Qatar
-
Reunion
-
Romania
-
Rwanda
-
Saudi Arabia
-
Serbia
-
Singapore
-
Slovakia
-
Slovenia
-
Somalia
-
South Africa
-
Spain
-
Sri Lanka
-
Sweden
-
Switzerland
-
Syria
-
Taiwan
-
Tajikistan
-
Tanzania
-
Thailand
-
Trinidad and Tobago
-
Tunisia
-
Turkey
-
UAE
-
Uganda
-
Ukraine
-
United Kingdom
-
United States
-
Uruguay
-
Uzbekistan
-
Venezuela
-
Vietnam
-
Yemen
-
Zambia
-
Zimbabwe
- Forex
- Crypto
