A Massachusetts court has allowed state authorities to expand their legal case against prediction market platform Kalshi, adding new allegations related to sports event contracts and youth-focused marketing.
On Tuesday, Suffolk County Superior Court Associate Justice Peter Krupp approved a request from Massachusetts officials to file a 71-page amended complaint. The updated filing adds new claims to the state’s lawsuit, which argues that Kalshi is offering sports wagering products without complying with state gaming laws.
According to the amended complaint, Kalshi allows individuals aged 18 and older to open accounts and trade sports event contracts. State officials argue that these products function similarly to sports betting and should be regulated under Massachusetts gaming laws.
The complaint also alleges that Kalshi targets younger users through marketing efforts, including promotions on university campuses and advertisements featuring people who appear to be under 21 years old. State authorities claim the company has not taken sufficient steps to prevent underage participation.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell originally filed the lawsuit in September 2025, arguing that Kalshi was accepting sports-related wagers without obtaining the required license from the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.
A court later issued a preliminary injunction preventing Kalshi from offering sports event contracts to Massachusetts residents while the legal case continues. The order effectively blocked the company from providing sports-related contracts in the state unless it complies with local gaming regulations.
Kalshi has strongly disputed the allegations. The company maintains that its products are regulated under federal derivatives laws rather than state gambling laws. Kalshi argues that it operates as a federally regulated exchange overseen by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and that its event contracts are financial products, not traditional sports bets.
The CFTC has publicly supported Kalshi’s position, stating that prediction markets and event contracts fall under federal oversight. The agency argues that federal law gives it primary authority to regulate these markets across the United States.
The Massachusetts lawsuit is part of a larger national debate over prediction markets and sports event contracts. Several states have challenged platforms like Kalshi, arguing that they are offering sports betting products without following state gaming rules.
At the same time, industry groups and regulators continue to debate whether sports prediction contracts should be treated as financial instruments regulated by federal authorities or as gambling products subject to state laws.
As the legal battle continues, the outcome of the Massachusetts case could have broader implications for the future regulation of prediction markets and sports-related event contracts across the United States.
