Ohio Joins Growing State Pushback Against Kalshi Using Massachusetts Ruling
Ohio is the latest state to include the recent Massachusetts prediction market ruling as supplemental authority in its own case, as state regulators increasingly point to the decision as judicial validation of their enforcement efforts against federally licensed prediction markets.
Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Christopher Barry-Smith issued a court order on Jan. 20 requiring Kalshi to halt its operations in Massachusetts pending legal cases. The preliminary injunction marked the first time a state successfully secured a court order forcing a prediction market operator to suspend sports-related contracts pending litigation.
Gaming lawyer Daniel Wallach shared on Jan. 23 that the Ohio Casino Control Commission (OCCC) filed this ruling in support of its opposition to Kalshi’s attempt to get a preliminary injunction.
The filing noted that the Massachusetts court “denied Kalshi’s motion to dismiss the state’s enforcement action.” Judge Barry-Smith also said that the operator didn’t adequately prove that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) preempts state laws.
A Battle Dating Back to April
The OCCC sent cease-and-desist letters in April to major prediction market platforms, including Kalshi, Robinhood, and Crypto.com. The correspondence claimed that these platforms were violating state laws by offering unlicensed betting on sports contracts.
Kalshi subsequently sued the OCCC and the Attorney General’s office in October. It claimed that despite months of back-and-forth talks, the state said federal law doesn’t preempt state law.
Kalshi has consistently argued that its CFTC license allows it to offer sports event contracts nationwide under the CEA. It maintains that it doesn’t need state-level gaming approval.
The operator seeks a preliminary injunction to allow it to continue operating in Ohio. In a November response, Ohio said that Kalshi has failed to demonstrate the “clear and manifest” purpose for the CEA to preempt lopreempting laws.
Jumping on the Massachusetts Decision
Ohio’s filing adds to a growing list of state enforcement actions that now rely on the Massachusetts ruling as persuasive authority. The New York State Gaming Commission was the first to do so. It used the case as support just hours after the announcement of Judge Barry-Smith’s decision. Other follow-up suits were filed in Tennessee, Nevada, and New Jersey.
State authorities are seeing some positive results from their efforts to push back against prediction markets. While Ohio’s case sits in the Sixth Circuit, regulators nationwide are closely watching parallel litigation elsewhere for guidance. The Ninth Circuit has emerged as a key battleground, with several cases now pending.
The latest action in the Ninth was the state of Nevada and the Nevada Resort Association filing answering briefs in Kalshi’s appeal. With Ohio now joining the growing list of states citing the Massachusetts ruling, the legal pressure on prediction markets is intensifying.
The outcome of those appeals—particularly on the question of federal pre-emption—could shape how prediction markets are regulated nationwide. At stake is whether state gaming regulators retain authority over sports-related contracts, or whether federal commodities law ultimately governs the segment.
Gambling Insider delivers the latest industry news, in-depth features, and operator reviews that you can trust. Our team combines rigorous editorial standards with decades of specialized expertise to ensure accuracy and fairness. We are committed to delivering clear, impartial, and dependable coverage across the global gambling sector.
