Robinhood Halts Michigan Sports Event Contracts Under Court-Approved Deal

The Michigan Gaming Control Board said in a September 9, 2026, announcement that Robinhood Derivatives, LLC has agreed to stop offering new sports-related event contracts to Michigan customers by the end of that day and to close out any remaining customer positions by October 9, 2026, under a court-approved agreement.

The agreement is set out in a stipulation and order signed by U.S. District Judge Paul L. Maloney of the Western District of Michigan and dated September 4, 2026. It documents the parties’ agreement concerning potential enforcement action by the state defendants over the listing, offering, sale, or permitting of trading of sports-related event contracts while related appeals proceed. The case names Attorney General Dana Nessel, Jim Ananich, Joni M. Thrower Davis, Andrew T. Palms, Deidre A. Lambert-Bounds, Mark Evenson, and MGCB Executive Director Henry Williams as defendants, all in their official capacities.

Terms of the Agreement

Under the order, Robinhood must cease offering new sports-related event contracts in Michigan that are traded on any Designated Contract Market, including the markets operated by KalshiEx LLC and Rothera Exchange and Clearing LLC, by the end of the day Eastern time on September 9, 2026. Robinhood must also close any open sports-related event contracts held by its Michigan customers (contracts opened on or before September 9, 2026, that remain open and that the customer has not closed voluntarily) by the end of the day Eastern time on October 9, 2026.

From the date of the stipulation, and for as long as Robinhood is not offering new sports-related event contracts in Michigan and remains in compliance with the agreement, the state defendants will forbear from bringing any enforcement actions against Robinhood over sports-related event contracts. The agreements are without prejudice to any party’s rights, obligations, or defenses. The MGCB said the deal preserves both sides’ legal positions, including Robinhood’s argument that its federally structured contracts are not subject to state regulation.

Litigation Background

The order recites the case’s procedural history. Robinhood filed a complaint for permanent injunction and declaratory relief against the Michigan defendants on March 4, 2026, and a motion for a preliminary injunction on March 9, 2026. Robinhood alleged that Michigan state laws are preempted by the Commodity Exchange Act as they relate to the trading of event contracts on Designated Contract Markets. The district court denied the preliminary-injunction motion on June 17, 2026. Robinhood filed its notice of appeal on June 18, 2026, and the appeal was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on June 23, 2026.

On July 2, 2026, the Robinhood appeal was consolidated with an appeal brought by QCX LLC, doing business as Polymarket US, which the order states presents substantially similar issues. A separate Sixth Circuit appeal by Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc., arising from litigation in the Eastern District of Michigan, was filed on August 10, 2026. A consolidated appeal by KalshiEx LLC arising from litigation in the Southern District of Ohio and the Middle District of Tennessee is fully briefed, and oral argument in that appeal was heard on July 30, 2026.

The order also records that the Circuit Court for the 30th Judicial Circuit in Ingham County entered a preliminary injunction in Nessel v. KalshiEx, LLC, enjoining KalshiEx from, among other things, offering or listing sports-related event contracts in Michigan. The Michigan Department of Attorney General then requested that Robinhood stop trading by its Michigan customers in sports-related event contracts in light of that state-court injunction. According to the order, Robinhood expressed the need for time to communicate with customers and to give its Michigan customers sufficient time to effectuate an orderly transition.

Statements From State Officials

“This agreement is another win for Michigan consumers,” MGCB Executive Director Henry Williams said in the announcement. “Sports wagering products should only be offered by operators who are licensed, regulated, and held accountable under Michigan law.” Williams said Robinhood had agreed to step back from offering products he described as unregulated while the courts resolve the broader legal questions, and that the board would keep working with the Attorney General’s office to protect Michigan consumers.

The board described the agreement as another step forward in its effort to keep sports wagering products limited to operators licensed and regulated under state law. The MGCB said it follows a preliminary injunction the Attorney General secured earlier in September 2026 against KalshiEX, barring that platform from offering, listing, or facilitating sports-related event contracts for anyone located in Michigan. The board said the deal makes Robinhood the second sports-contract platform to withdraw its offerings from Michigan in 2026, following Kalshi, while the two companies’ federal court challenges continue.

“Throughout this litigation, our priority has been protecting Michigan consumers from exploitative practices and ensuring betting in our state remains fair and regulated,” Nessel said. She said she was proud of the attorneys in her office for securing an agreement that protects Michigan residents while the litigation proceeds.

Robinhood was represented in the stipulation by Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP and by Miller Johnson. The state defendants were represented by assistant attorneys general in the Michigan Department of Attorney General’s Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement Division.

The board said it will continue working with the Attorney General’s office to protect consumers and to keep sports wagering in Michigan limited to properly licensed and regulated operators. Under the order, Robinhood’s cessation of new sports-related event contracts in Michigan remains in effect until the first of two events: the final resolution of the Robinhood, Polymarket, Coinbase, or Kalshi appeals by the Sixth Circuit (or, if Supreme Court review is sought, by a denial of review or a Supreme Court decision), or the dissolution of the state-court injunction in Nessel v. KalshiEx, LLC.