Connecticut Cracks Down on Unlicensed Prediction Market Operators

Connecticut's Department of Consumer Protection has taken legal action against three major prediction market platforms-Kalshi, Robinhood, and Crypto.com-accusing them of operating unlicensed sports betting services. The state issued cease-and-desist orders to the firms, demanding they halt all advertising, promotion, and provision of unregulated online gambling to Connecticut residents. The state agency emphasized that only licensed operators such as DraftKings, FanDuel, and Fanatics are authorized to provide sports betting services within the state according to reports.

The move marks the latest escalation in a broader legal battle over the regulatory status of prediction markets.

Kalshi, in particular, has been defending its operations under the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), arguing that its event contracts are legal swaps and not traditional bets. The firm filed a lawsuit in response to Connecticut's order, claiming the state's actions infringe on federal regulatory authority.

Connecticut is not alone in its regulatory push. Similar legal challenges have been filed in New York, Massachusetts, and other states, with Kalshi now facing legal action in at least ten U.S. states. The firm has also recently closed a $1 billion funding round at a valuation of $11 billion, indicating strong investor confidence despite the ongoing legal challenges according to analysis.

Why the Standoff Happened

State regulators argue that prediction market platforms like Kalshi, Robinhood, and Crypto.com pose significant consumer risks. Connecticut's Department of Consumer Protection highlighted the lack of technical standards, security protections, and integrity controls to prevent insider betting or manipulation. The state also raised concerns about the platforms' lack of regulatory oversight in payout rules and their tendency to advertise to self-excluded gamblers and on college campuses according to the agency.

In its response to Connecticut, Kalshi maintained that its operations are subject to federal oversight and are lawful under CFTC regulations. The firm claims its platform provides a "safe, compliant, and regulated" environment for retail customers according to the firm. However, the state insists that none of the three companies hold valid licenses to offer sports wagering in Connecticut, and even if they did, their contracts would violate state laws regarding minimum age requirements and advertising restrictions according to state regulators.

How Markets Reacted

The legal action has drawn mixed responses from industry observers and stakeholders. While Connecticut regulators argue that prediction markets pose systemic risks, proponents of the platforms highlight their potential for innovation and financial inclusion. Kalshi, for example, has positioned itself as a pioneer in legalizing sports betting in all 50 states, though this claim is now being legally contested in multiple jurisdictions according to industry reports.

A recent federal court ruling in Nevada has added further uncertainty. U.S. District Judge Andrew Gordon ruled that Kalshi's operations in that state fall under Nevada's gaming laws, rejecting the platform's argument that it is exempt from state regulation according to the ruling. The ruling marks a potential turning point in the legal battle, as it challenges the federal preemption argument that Kalshi and similar firms have relied on.

Risks to the Outlook

The ongoing legal battles could have significant implications for the future of prediction markets. If state regulators succeed in classifying event contracts as traditional sports betting, the industry could be forced to comply with existing state licensing and tax frameworks. This would likely result in higher operational costs and stricter compliance requirements for prediction market operators.

Analysts are closely watching how federal courts handle these cases. The potential for a split among lower courts could lead to a Supreme Court review, which would provide a definitive resolution on whether event contracts fall under federal commodities law or state gambling regulation according to legal experts. Until then, the regulatory landscape remains fragmented, with different states applying varying interpretations of the law.

For now, Kalshi and its competitors continue to navigate a complex legal environment. As the company prepares for an appeal of the Nevada ruling, the outcome of these cases will shape whether prediction markets can operate freely or must seek state licenses to continue their services.

Source