Image credit: Shutterstock
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell has filed an amended lawsuit against Kalshi after a state judge allowed officials to add more claims tied to sports event contracts.
The case keeps one of the main state-level challenges to prediction markets alive. Kalshi argues that its CFTC-regulated contracts are not covered by state sports betting rules.
71-Page Complaint Adds Underage Claims
Associate Justice Peter Krupp of Suffolk County Superior Court allowed Massachusetts to file a 71-page amended complaint against Kalshi. The new filing builds on the state’s claim that Kalshi has been offering sports wagers in Massachusetts without a license from the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.
The amended complaint alleges that Kalshi targets people under 21 and does too little to stop them from using the platform. State officials pointed to university marketing and ads showing people who appear to be younger than 21. Massachusetts said Kalshi lets users create accounts from age 18 and then buy event contracts tied to sports outcomes.
January Injunction Targets Sports Contracts
Campbell first sued Kalshi in September 2025, saying the company was promoting and accepting unlawful online sports wagers in the state. In January, the court allowed a preliminary injunction that would block Kalshi from offering sports event contracts to Massachusetts customers unless it complies with state gaming laws.
That order is tied to the same question now moving through the case: whether Kalshi’s sports contracts are financial derivatives under federal law or sports betting products that states can license and restrict. Kalshi has denied that it is operating an illegal sportsbook.
The company says it is a federally regulated designated contract market and that its event contracts fall under the Commodity Exchange Act.
CFTC Brief Backs Federal Oversight
The CFTC has supported Kalshi’s position in the Massachusetts dispute. In April, the agency filed an amicus brief with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, saying it has exclusive jurisdiction over U.S. commodity derivatives markets, including prediction markets.
That puts the federal regulator at odds with Massachusetts and other states that say sports contracts should follow gambling laws, age limits and local licensing requirements. The amended complaint does not resolve the jurisdiction fight. It gives Massachusetts more room to press its consumer protection and sports betting claims while Kalshi argues that federal law overrides state rules.
Michigan Order Adds State Pressure
The Massachusetts case is part of a wider fight between prediction markets and state gaming officials. Kalshi has won support in some federal disputes, but states continue to challenge sports contracts as unlicensed wagering.
Michigan also secured a temporary order this week blocking Kalshi from allowing residents to place sports-related trades. The next step is the Massachusetts court process, where the amended complaint will test how far state officials can go while the federal-versus-state authority fight continues.
