Kalshi, one of the fastest-growing prediction market platforms in the United States, is facing another major regulatory setback after a Washington state judge ordered the company to sharply restrict its operations.
The ruling requires Kalshi to stop offering a broad range of event contracts to users in Washington state, intensifying a growing legal battle over whether prediction markets should be treated primarily as federally regulated financial products or as gambling activities governed by individual states.
The development is important because Kalshi operates under federal oversight from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The company has argued that its event contracts fall under federal commodities law and therefore should not be subject to conflicting state gambling regulations.
Register for the next Tekedia Mini-MBA.
Register for Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Washington authorities, however, have taken the opposite position, arguing that contracts involving sports, elections and other events constitute unlawful gambling under state law.
The latest order came from King County Superior Court Judge John McHale, following an earlier preliminary injunction in July.
The judge concluded that Kalshi was likely violating Washington’s gambling laws and directed the company to significantly reduce the markets it makes available to residents. The restrictions cover contracts connected to sports, elections, politics, entertainment, culture, technology and science, among other categories.
Kalshi has challenged the state’s authority to impose these restrictions and maintains that federal law gives the CFTC jurisdiction over its event contracts. The dispute therefore extends beyond one company or one state.
At its core is a question about regulatory jurisdiction: can states classify federally regulated prediction contracts as gambling and prohibit them, or does federal commodities law preempt those state restrictions?
The conflict comes as prediction markets are rapidly expanding across the United States.
Platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket have attracted significant attention by allowing users to trade contracts tied to elections, sports, economic indicators, weather, geopolitical developments and other real-world outcomes.
Supporters argue that these markets provide useful information by allowing participants to express expectations through financial positions. Critics contend that sports and political contracts increasingly resemble conventional betting and could create risks involving gambling addiction, market manipulation and conflicts of interest.
The Washington dispute is particularly significant because it could establish another important precedent for how prediction markets operate across state lines. Kalshi is already facing regulatory and legal challenges elsewhere.
Nevada’s gaming regulator, for example, has pursued penalties connected to alleged failures to comply with geographic restrictions, while Kalshi has argued that state enforcement efforts conflict with federal law.
The company has encountered scrutiny over the nature of individual markets. FlightAware recently sued Kalshi over contracts involving flight cancellations, alleging unauthorized use of its data and branding, although the lawsuit was subsequently withdrawn.
For Kalshi, the Washington ruling could mean greater reliance on geofencing and more complicated compliance systems. It also raises the possibility of a prolonged federal-state legal confrontation that could eventually require intervention from higher courts.
Importantly, the recent order concerns Washington state, not Washington, D.C. That distinction matters because prediction-market availability and legal challenges vary by jurisdiction. The broader issue remains unresolved: as prediction markets evolve into major financial and information platforms, regulators must determine where financial innovation ends and gambling begins.
Kalshi’s Washington battle therefore represents more than a dispute over individual contracts. It is part of a larger struggle over who gets to regulate the next generation of prediction markets—and whether the United States will develop one national framework or a fragmented state-by-state system.