Kalshi Is Now Blocking Michigan Users — and Faces a Nevada Contempt Hearing on July 16
For the first time, prediction market litigation has crossed from the courtroom to actual platform access restrictions. A Michigan state court issued a temporary restraining order on June 29 requiring Kalshi to halt sports contracts until July 13 — with $120,000-per-day fines for non-compliance — and Kalshi began geofencing Michigan users on July 7. Separately, Nevada is seeking to hold Kalshi in contempt after investigators successfully purchased prohibited contracts eight times while physically in the state. Polymarket also filed its first independent federal lawsuit, against New Mexico.
The prediction-market litigation wave has produced its first concrete platform-access restrictions. On June 29, Ingham County Circuit Court Judge Rosemarie Aquilina signed a temporary restraining order obtained by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, requiring KalshiEx to halt sports event contracts in the state until July 13, on penalty of $120,000 per day. Kalshi said it would comply while continuing to contest the underlying lawsuit, and on July 7 the platform began blocking Michigan users from its sports markets. It is the first case in the 2026 litigation wave where a court order has caused visible, on-the-ground changes to what prediction market users can access — moving from a fight over legal theory to a fight over who can use the product.
The Michigan TRO comes on top of the June 19 ruling by US District Judge Paul Maloney, who denied Polymarket and Robinhood a federal preliminary injunction on preemption grounds. That ruling — covered here when it happened — was a legal loss. The TRO is an operational one: Michigan users can still access non-sports Kalshi markets, but the state has effectively enforced a partial product block while the litigation continues. The $120,000 daily fine structure creates strong compliance pressure regardless of how the underlying case ultimately resolves. An appeal of the June 19 Maloney ruling is proceeding separately in the Sixth Circuit.
In Nevada, the situation is further along — and more troubled for Kalshi. The Nevada Gaming Control Board obtained a state-court preliminary injunction on May 18 requiring Kalshi to geofence sports, election, and entertainment event contracts from Nevada residents. The Nevada Supreme Court denied Kalshi's bid to pause that order. What followed matters: NGCB investigators testing the geofencing found that they could successfully purchase prohibited contracts on eight separate occasions across four days (May 28, 30, 31, and June 1) while physically located in Nevada. The alleged failure was attributed to Kalshi's geofencing solution — a homegrown, IP-address-based system built for roughly $190,000, which is notoriously unreliable because IP addresses do not reliably identify physical location. A full-day contempt hearing is scheduled for July 16, with a possible extension to July 31.
The Nevada contempt case raises a question the whole sector now has to answer: what does technically adequate geofencing look like, and who decides? IP-based geofencing is the industry standard starting point, but it can be circumvented by VPNs, mobile data roaming, and certain carrier configurations. More accurate location verification — GPS, cell-tower triangulation, device sensors — is technically feasible but adds friction to the user experience and raises its own privacy questions. How courts evaluate 'good faith compliance' will set the standard for every other state that obtains an injunction. If Kalshi is held in contempt and fined, the signal to the other litigation states is that IP-based blocking is insufficient and something more robust is required.
The third development of the week is Polymarket filing its own federal lawsuit in New Mexico on July 1, seeking a declaratory judgment that state law cannot preempt the Commodity Exchange Act and a preliminary injunction blocking New Mexico from taking enforcement action against it. This is notable because Polymarket has generally let the CFTC lead the legal fight in each state, with its own participation limited to supporting motions. New Mexico twice rejected Polymarket's requests to delay any enforcement until the Kalshi case resolved. The independent filing puts Polymarket directly in the litigation, alongside the existing CFTC suit, and is the first time the platform has brought its own preemption case without the agency as lead plaintiff. The litigation scoreboard has been updated to reflect Nevada as the tenth state in active litigation and the changed status in Michigan and New Mexico.
Operators mentioned in this article
Recent updates
Gibraltar Just Created the World's First Dedicated Prediction Market Regulatory Framework
Gibraltar's Prediction Market Regulations 2026 came into force on July 13, making Gibraltar the first jurisdiction in the world to create a standalone regulatory category for prediction markets — explicitly separate from gambling law. Licensed operators ADI Predictstreet and WagerWire received the first approvals. The framework allows stablecoins for deposits and settlement, restricts death and terrorism contracts, and is designed by Gibraltar as a potential European standard.
Kalshi Launches Pro: a Professional Trading Terminal That Signals What the Platform Is Becoming
Kalshi released Kalshi Pro on July 13, 2026 — a free professional trading terminal built on TradingView charts with a multi-market Canvas layout, take-profit/stop-loss orders, reduce-only orders, a max-slippage guard, and margin-risk alerts. The platform covers both prediction markets and crypto perpetual futures. It is the clearest signal yet that Kalshi is evolving from a consumer prediction app into a full-service derivatives exchange competing for institutional and professional traders.
Italy Re-Bans Polymarket — Putting a $22M Lazio FC Sponsorship Deal Under Italian Criminal Law
Italy's Customs and Monopolies Agency (ADM) added Polymarket to its blacklist of blocked websites for the second time in July 2026, re-classifying it as an unlicensed gambling operator. Polymarket had won a court reversal before the TAR Lazio administrative court in late 2025. The renewed block threatens Polymarket's $22 million sponsorship deal with Lazio FC: Italian law prohibits clubs from advertising unlicensed betting operations, potentially forcing Lazio to drop the partnership.