Betting

Michigan Court Orders Kalshi to Halt Sports Contracts

Published

Kalshi must stop offering sports event contracts to anyone in Michigan after a state judge granted a temporary restraining order, and the platform faces fines of $120,000 a day if it fails to geoblock users inside the state.

Ingham County Circuit Court Judge Rosemarie E. Aquilina signed the order on Monday, June 29, 2026, at the request of the Michigan Attorney General’s office, which is handling the matter on behalf of the Michigan Gaming Control Board. The order runs for 14 days, through July 13, 2026, and bars Kalshi and anyone acting for it from offering, advertising, or facilitating internet sports betting to any person located in Michigan. The judge found that residents faced immediate and irreparable harm from a betting operation posing as an investment platform.

To comply, Kalshi must route Michigan traffic through a third-party geolocation provider licensed by the state regulator, the same geofencing standard the board holds its licensed sportsbooks to. The court left room for Kalshi to use a vendor licensed in another state, provided Michigan confirms it meets local requirements.

How the case reached this point

Attorney General Dana Nessel sued Kalshi in March 2026, arguing its sports-related contracts are online sports betting in all but name and therefore need a license from the gaming board. Kalshi tried to move the fight to friendlier ground, asking a federal court to take the case on the theory that its contracts are federally regulated financial products beyond a state’s reach.

That gambit failed. On June 25, 2026, U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney sent the case back to state court, rejecting Kalshi’s argument that the dispute belonged in the federal system. Days earlier, the same judge had turned down bids by Polymarket and Robinhood to block Michigan from enforcing its gambling laws against their own sports prediction contracts. The remand cleared the way for Nessel to seek the immediate restrictions Aquilina granted.

The core disagreement is jurisdictional. Kalshi holds a federal designation as a regulated derivatives exchange and argues that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the federal agency overseeing derivatives markets, has exclusive authority over its event contracts, leaving no room for state gambling regulators. Michigan counters that a wager on a game is a wager regardless of how it is packaged, and that its consumer-protection rules apply to anyone taking sports bets from residents.

Kalshi said it would comply with the order even as it appeals, maintaining that it answers only to federal regulators. Head of communications Elisabeth Diana said the company would fight the decision and cast the states lining up against it as monopoly interests more concerned with protecting incumbent operators than consumers.

What Michigan says is at stake

The gaming board’s objections go beyond turf. Licensed Michigan sportsbooks must verify that bettors are at least 21, run self-exclusion programs, set deposit and wagering limits, and point problem gamblers to help. Kalshi accepts users as young as 18 and offers none of those safeguards, the board said, leaving vulnerable residents exposed. Aquilina singled out that gap, warning that letting the contracts continue would risk profound harm to the state’s young people.

Money is also at issue. By operating without a license, Kalshi sidesteps the taxes and fees licensed operators pay, revenue Michigan channels into its school aid fund, compulsive-gambling treatment, and a coverage fund for police and firefighters. Executive Director Henry Williams called Kalshi “sports betting dressed up as investing” and said the agency would use every legal tool available to stop operators from rewriting a bet as an event contract to dodge the rules.

A widening state-by-state fight

Michigan is now the second state to win a court-ordered halt to Kalshi’s sports contracts, after Nevada; a similar order in Massachusetts is on hold while Kalshi appeals. The bans and counter-suits are piling up in a state-by-state legal war as courts divide on the central preemption question. A federal appeals court sided with Kalshi in its clash with New Jersey in April 2026, while another has sounded far more skeptical of the company’s federal-shield argument, a split that makes an eventual Supreme Court showdown likely.

Kalshi is also on the offensive. It recently sued Illinois over a new state law aimed at sports prediction markets, even as federal regulators have moved to block a related Illinois prediction-market tax. Its trading volume has kept climbing through the dispute, topping $30 billion in June.

For Michigan bettors, the immediate effect is simple: sports contracts on Kalshi go dark in the state until at least July 13, when the court weighs a longer-lasting injunction. The outcome there will show whether Nessel can convert a two-week freeze into a permanent bar, and hand other state regulators a template to follow.

Elena Markov is an AI-generated analyst at Gaming.net, tracking regulatory developments, licensing decisions, and enforcement actions in major gambling jurisdictions worldwide. Her reporting centers on specific policy changes, fines, auditor findings, and legal interpretations affecting licensed operators.

Elena’s articles parse regulatory documents and enforcement notices from bodies such as the UK Gambling Commission, Malta Gaming Authority, and state regulators, explaining how these moves influence market access, operator obligations, and compliance costs. She foregrounds named regulators, actual rulings, timelines, and documented outcomes.
Articles authored by Elena Markov are AI-generated and reviewed by Gaming.net’s editorial team to ensure accuracy, clarity, and compliance-aware coverage of gambling regulation.