Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?
Connecticut's September action against nine prediction-market companies intensified a dispute over sports-event contracts. State officials invoke gambling laws and consumer safeguards, while the CFTC argues that federal authority displaces the challenged restrictions.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
Connecticut announced enforcement against nine prediction-market companies on September 10, 2026. The action sharpened an existing dispute with the CFTC over whether sports-event contracts are subject to state gambling laws or exclusive federal commodities regulation.
Read the full background
On September 10, 2026, Connecticut announced nine cease-and-desist orders over sports-event contracts. The named brands were Polymarket, Coinbase, Crypto.com, Robinhood, ProphetX, Novig, Webull, Gemini and Underdog Predict. The state alleges that these products evade gambling rules, including protections involving age, self-exclusion and college sports. Those allegations are not findings against every company. Connecticut announcement (opens in a new tab)
The jurisdiction dispute began before that announcement. On April 2, the United States and CFTC sued Connecticut, arguing that federal commodities law displaces the challenged state restrictions on qualifying event contracts traded on federally regulated exchanges. Their complaint asks a court to uphold that position; it does not establish that every product offered under a prediction-market brand has the same legal status. Federal complaint (opens in a new tab)
Kalshi's separate federal case supplies part of the court record. An order issued August 10 denied its request for a preliminary injunction against Connecticut enforcement, finding it had not shown likely success on its arguments. The court denied further interim relief on August 15. These were decisions about temporary protection, not a final nationwide judgment on prediction markets. August 10 order (opens in a new tab) · August 15 order (opens in a new tab)
Connecticut announced a separate state lawsuit against Kalshi on August 26. Kalshi is not among the nine brands in the September announcement. The dispute therefore involves several proceedings, with competing claims about regulatory authority and consumer protections. The cited August orders alone do not establish whether later appellate relief restricts enforcement. Connecticut lawsuit announcement (opens in a new tab)
People in this case
Michael S. SeligDirectly involved
William TongCommented
Ned LamontCommented
Jacki McGavickCommented
Timeline
21 timeline entries on this page. Dates: December 2, 2025 to October 19, 2026
December 2025
Connecticut sends Kalshi cease-and-desist letter
Connecticut's consumer-protection department sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter alleging unlicensed sports wagering.
[01]Kalshi v. Connecticut officials, district court opinion, docket 94
Connecticut's consumer-protection department sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter alleging unlicensed sports wagering. Kalshi sued Connecticut officials, seeking to prevent state enforcement against its sports-event contracts. Under the parties' joint stipulation, the court ordered Connecticut officials to refrain from the challenged enforcement while Kalshi's motion was pending. The federal court heard oral argument on Kalshi's request for a preliminary injunction against Connecticut enforcement.
Kalshi v. Connecticut officials, district court opinion, docket 94Opinion pages 8-11, regulatory history and procedural historyKalshi files federal challenge to Connecticut enforcement
Kalshi sued Connecticut officials, seeking to prevent state enforcement against its sports-event contracts.
[01]Kalshi v. Connecticut officials, district court opinion, docket 94
Connecticut's consumer-protection department sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter alleging unlicensed sports wagering. Kalshi sued Connecticut officials, seeking to prevent state enforcement against its sports-event contracts. Under the parties' joint stipulation, the court ordered Connecticut officials to refrain from the challenged enforcement while Kalshi's motion was pending. The federal court heard oral argument on Kalshi's request for a preliminary injunction against Connecticut enforcement.
Kalshi v. Connecticut officials, district court opinion, docket 94Opinion pages 8-11, regulatory history and procedural historyCourt temporarily restrains enforcement by agreement
Under the parties' joint stipulation, the court ordered Connecticut officials to refrain from the challenged enforcement while Kalshi's motion was pending.
[01]Kalshi v. Connecticut officials, district court opinion, docket 94
Connecticut's consumer-protection department sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter alleging unlicensed sports wagering. Kalshi sued Connecticut officials, seeking to prevent state enforcement against its sports-event contracts. Under the parties' joint stipulation, the court ordered Connecticut officials to refrain from the challenged enforcement while Kalshi's motion was pending. The federal court heard oral argument on Kalshi's request for a preliminary injunction against Connecticut enforcement.
Kalshi v. Connecticut officials, district court opinion, docket 94Opinion pages 8-11, regulatory history and procedural history
February 2026
Court hears argument on Kalshi's injunction request
The federal court heard oral argument on Kalshi's request for a preliminary injunction against Connecticut enforcement.
[01]Kalshi v. Connecticut officials, district court opinion, docket 94
Connecticut's consumer-protection department sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter alleging unlicensed sports wagering. Kalshi sued Connecticut officials, seeking to prevent state enforcement against its sports-event contracts. Under the parties' joint stipulation, the court ordered Connecticut officials to refrain from the challenged enforcement while Kalshi's motion was pending. The federal court heard oral argument on Kalshi's request for a preliminary injunction against Connecticut enforcement.
Kalshi v. Connecticut officials, district court opinion, docket 94Opinion pages 8-11, regulatory history and procedural history
April 2026
Federal government challenges Connecticut's restrictions
The United States and CFTC file a federal complaint against Connecticut, seeking to prevent application of the challenged state gambling restrictions to qualifying event contracts traded on federally regulated exchanges.
[02]Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Federal plaintiffs argue that federal commodities law displaces the challenged Connecticut restrictions on qualifying exchange-traded event contracts. This complaint states their legal position and requests relief; it is not a judicial ruling. It predates the September nine-company announcement.
United States and CFTC v. Connecticut: federal complaint · Commodity Futures Trading CommissionCase 3:26-cv-00498, Document 1; paragraphs 1–10, 22–24 and 68–71; requested relief, printed pages 23 onward
August 2026
Connecticut comptroller releases a prediction-market assessment
Source release
Scanlon's monthly economic update examined prediction markets and their relationship to Connecticut gambling rules. It discussed consumer risks, pending litigation and possible business uses.
[03]Scanlon calls for more attention to prediction markets
Scanlon announces an economic update examining prediction markets, consumer risks and business uses.
Scanlon calls for more attention to prediction marketsAugust 3 dateline; Scanlon's quotation beginning 'Prediction markets are literally everywhere'.[04]Connecticut Economic Update, August 3, 2026
The report distinguishes federal-preemption claims, state consumer protections and possible business benefits.
Connecticut Economic Update, August 3, 2026Pages 2-6, 'Is That Even Legal? Prediction Markets Gaining Popularity'; page 5 discusses Connecticut litigation.District court denies Kalshi a preliminary injunction
In Kalshi's separate federal case, an order issued August 10 denies temporary protection from Connecticut enforcement. The court finds Kalshi has not shown likely success on its arguments; this is not a final merits judgment. The order was signed August 7.
[05]United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
Order signed August 7 and issued August 10, as confirmed in Document 99. The court denied preliminary relief and evaluated Kalshi's likelihood of success; it did not enter a final merits judgment or decide the legality of every prediction-market product. Its analysis concerns sporting outcomes and in-game occurrences.
KalshiEX LLC v. Cafferelli: preliminary injunction denied · United States District Court for the District of ConnecticutCase 3:25-cv-02016, Document 94; printed pages 13–14, 23–32 and 37–38; page 17 note 38[06]United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
Signed August 15. The district court denied Kalshi's request for an injunction pending appeal and alternative short-term administrative relief. This historical order does not by itself establish the current appellate stay position.
KalshiEX LLC v. Cafferelli: injunction pending appeal denied · United States District Court for the District of ConnecticutCase 3:25-cv-02016, Document 99; printed pages 1–2 and 7District court denies Kalshi further interim relief
Judge Vernon D. Oliver denies Kalshi's request for an injunction pending appeal and alternative short-term administrative relief. The district-court order does not establish the outcome of any later appellate request.
[06]United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
Signed August 15. The district court denied Kalshi's request for an injunction pending appeal and alternative short-term administrative relief. This historical order does not by itself establish the current appellate stay position.
KalshiEX LLC v. Cafferelli: injunction pending appeal denied · United States District Court for the District of ConnecticutCase 3:25-cv-02016, Document 99; printed pages 1–2 and 7Connecticut announces a separate suit against Kalshi
Source release
The Connecticut attorney general's office announces a state lawsuit seeking to stop Kalshi from offering sports wagers. The announcement also acknowledges Kalshi's appeal in its earlier federal case.
[07]Office of the Connecticut Attorney General
Announcement of a state lawsuit seeking to stop Kalshi's sports wagers. Keep it distinct from Kalshi's earlier federal case and the September action naming nine other brands. The announcement establishes the state's allegations and requested remedy, not the outcome of its suit.
Connecticut announces a separate lawsuit against Kalshi · Office of the Connecticut Attorney GeneralAugust 26, 2026 date header; opening paragraph; paragraph acknowledging Kalshi's Second Circuit appeal
September 2026
Connecticut announces orders targeting nine prediction-market brands
Source release
Connecticut announces nine cease-and-desist orders involving Polymarket, Coinbase, Crypto.com, Robinhood, ProphetX, Novig, Webull, Gemini and Underdog Predict. The announcement alleges unlawful sports wagering and says the orders were issued that week; it does not establish each order's signature date.
[08]Office of the Governor of Connecticut
Source excerpt
sports betting may only be offered by legal, licensed sportsbooks that adhere to our regulations and technical standards
Official account of September enforcement and the state's allegations. September 10 is the announcement date, not a verified signature date for every order. This announcement is not a finding that each named company committed every alleged violation.
Connecticut announces nine prediction-market cease-and-desist orders · Office of the Governor of ConnecticutOpening paragraphs; Commissioner Cafferelli quotation; nine-operator listCFTC files for federal injunction against Connecticut; Robinhood moves to intervene
Incident
The CFTC filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in federal court seeking to block Connecticut from enforcing its gambling laws against prediction-market platforms. The same day, Robinhood moved to intervene in the suit, citing its own cease-and-desist order from Connecticut; Connecticut is not opposing that intervention.
[09]The Gambling Wire: CFTC, Robinhood Escalate Connecticut Prediction Market Fight
Source excerpt
The CFTC filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on Sept. 11 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut... On the same day, Robinhood asked to intervene in the CFTC lawsuit against the state.
Trade-press report on the CFTC's federal injunction motion against Connecticut and Robinhood's motion to intervene in the same suit, corroborated independently by on360.ca and sccgmanagement.com.
Underdog sues Connecticut officials in federal court
Underdog Exchange DCM and UDM LLC file suit in the District of Connecticut against Attorney General William Tong, Consumer Protection Commissioner Bryan T. Cafferelli and DCP gaming director Kristofer Gilman, attaching the cease-and-desist order issued to Underdog Predict on September 9. The case is assigned to District Judge Stefan R. Underhill. It reverses the posture of the existing litigation, with a targeted company as plaintiff rather than defendant.
[10]Docket: Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. v. Tong, No. 3:26-cv-01499 (D. Conn.)
Source excerpt
COMPLAINT against BRYAN T. CAFFERELLI, KRISTOFER GILMAN, WILLIAM TONG ( Filing fee $405 receipt number ACTDC-8759295.), filed by UNDERDOG EXCHANGE DCM, INC., UDM, LLC d/b/a UNDERDOG PREDICT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - UnderDog Predict Cease & Desist, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Porzio, Steven) (Entered: 09/15/2026)
Federal docket for a new action by Underdog against Connecticut’s Attorney General, the Commissioner of Consumer Protection and the DCP gaming director, assigned to District Judge Stefan R. Underhill. It reverses the posture of the existing litigation: here a targeted company is the plaintiff. The docket records the filing date as September 15, 2026; some trade coverage dates it September 16.
Docket: Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. v. Tong, No. 3:26-cv-01499 (D. Conn.)Entry 1 (complaint) and the case-assignment entry.Connecticut’s suit against Kalshi is stayed pending a decision on remand
Judge Vernon D. Oliver stays all deadlines in Connecticut’s suit against Kalshi, including Kalshi’s deadline to respond to the complaint, until the court decides whether the case should be remanded to state court. Kalshi had removed the action to federal court. The order makes the remand question, rather than the underlying gambling question, the gating issue in this strand.
[11]Docket: State of Connecticut v. KalshiEX LLC, No. 3:26-cv-01382 (D. Conn.) — proceedings stayed pending remand
Source excerpt
ORDER re 38 Stipulation. The proposed stipulation is So Ordered. All pending deadlines in this action, including Kalshi’s deadline to respond to the Complaint, the Rule 26(f) conference, and the deadline to submit the Rule 26(f) report, are stayed until the Court adjudicates the issue of remand. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 9/17/2026.
Connecticut’s own suit against Kalshi was removed to federal court, and Judge Vernon D. Oliver has now stayed every deadline until he decides whether to send it back to state court. That makes remand, rather than the merits of the gambling question, the gating issue in this strand. No press coverage of this order was found.
Docket: State of Connecticut v. KalshiEX LLC, No. 3:26-cv-01382 (D. Conn.) — proceedings stayed pending remandEntry 39, order of 17 September 2026.
October 2026
Connecticut joins a Supreme Court brief defending state gambling authority
Ohio, Connecticut and other states ask the Supreme Court to hear New Jersey's Kalshi case. Their joint brief describes conflicting rulings and argues that the question of state gambling authority warrants review. It does not decide Connecticut's pending litigation.
[12]Ohio, Connecticut and other states urge Supreme Court review
The joint brief supports New Jersey's petition and describes the dispute over state gambling authority.
Ohio, Connecticut and other states urge Supreme Court reviewIntroduction, summary and state signatories[13]Supreme Court docket: Flaherty v. KalshiEX, No. 26-299
The official docket records filing dates. The case is New Jersey's petition, not Connecticut's district-court action.
Supreme Court docket: Flaherty v. KalshiEX, No. 26-299October 7-8, 2026 amicus filing entriesNFL urges Supreme Court review of sports-contract jurisdiction
Incident
The NFL filed a brief supporting review of New Jersey's dispute with Kalshi. It argues that federal exclusivity would weaken sports-betting safeguards and that states retain authority. The brief concerns a separate proceeding with a related jurisdiction question; it is not a ruling in Connecticut's case.
[14]NFL brief on state regulation of prediction-market sports bets
October 8 amicus brief in Supreme Court case 26-299, Flaherty and Davenport v. Kalshi. This is a New Jersey proceeding concerning the federal-jurisdiction question also at issue in Connecticut; it is not a Connecticut ruling.
NFL brief on state regulation of prediction-market sports betsCover; printed pages 3-7, Introduction and Summary of ArgumentDodd argues that his namesake law preserved state gaming authority
Former Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd files a brief supporting review in New Jersey's case. He argues that sports wagers are not swaps and that the Dodd-Frank Act did not create a federal sports-betting regime or displace state and tribal gaming laws.
[15]Christopher Dodd files a brief on the scope of the Dodd-Frank Act
Dodd argues that Congress preserved state and tribal gaming authority. The brief concerns New Jersey's petition.
Christopher Dodd files a brief on the scope of the Dodd-Frank ActInterest and introduction, pages 1-6[13]Supreme Court docket: Flaherty v. KalshiEX, No. 26-299
The official docket records filing dates. The case is New Jersey's petition, not Connecticut's district-court action.
Supreme Court docket: Flaherty v. KalshiEX, No. 26-299October 7-8, 2026 amicus filing entriesGensler argues Dodd-Frank did not transfer sports-betting jurisdiction to the CFTC
Former CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler supports Supreme Court review in New Jersey's case. He argues that Congress did not transfer sports-betting jurisdiction from the states to the CFTC through Dodd-Frank and that sports bets fall outside the statutory swap definition.
[16]Gary Gensler files a brief on sports contracts and federal jurisdiction
Gensler disputes the claim that Congress transferred sports-betting jurisdiction to the CFTC.
Gary Gensler files a brief on sports contracts and federal jurisdictionIntroduction and summary, pages 2-8[13]Supreme Court docket: Flaherty v. KalshiEX, No. 26-299
The official docket records filing dates. The case is New Jersey's petition, not Connecticut's district-court action.
Supreme Court docket: Flaherty v. KalshiEX, No. 26-299October 7-8, 2026 amicus filing entriesTribal coalition asks the Supreme Court to protect gaming sovereignty
A joint brief from 130 federally recognized tribes and 15 tribal organizations supports New Jersey's petition. The coalition argues that prediction-market sports betting on tribal lands violates its gaming rights and threatens revenue used for government services. These are the amici's arguments.
[17]Tribes and tribal organizations urge review of sports-contract jurisdiction
The coalition argues that prediction-market sports betting threatens tribal sovereignty and gaming revenue.
Tribes and tribal organizations urge review of sports-contract jurisdictionInterest and summary, pages 1-4; appendix listing amici[13]Supreme Court docket: Flaherty v. KalshiEX, No. 26-299
The official docket records filing dates. The case is New Jersey's petition, not Connecticut's district-court action.
Supreme Court docket: Flaherty v. KalshiEX, No. 26-299October 7-8, 2026 amicus filing entriesGaming industry group urges Supreme Court review of competing regulatory regimes
The American Gaming Association supports review in New Jersey's case. It argues that prediction markets offer sports wagers while avoiding obligations imposed on licensed operators, undermining consumer protections and fair competition. The association represents regulated gaming businesses.
[18]American Gaming Association files a sports-contract amicus brief
The gaming-industry group argues that competing operators should face state and tribal safeguards.
American Gaming Association files a sports-contract amicus briefInterest and summary, pages 1-5[13]Supreme Court docket: Flaherty v. KalshiEX, No. 26-299
The official docket records filing dates. The case is New Jersey's petition, not Connecticut's district-court action.
Supreme Court docket: Flaherty v. KalshiEX, No. 26-299October 7-8, 2026 amicus filing entriesA conditional casino-product exclusion from the swap definition takes effect
The CFTC's interim final rule excludes qualifying sportsbook, casino and other licensed wagering products from the swap definition. The rule sets conditions concerning operators, regulation and trading structure. It distinguishes these products from organized-market event contracts; it does not resolve Connecticut's lawsuits.
[19]Published CFTC rule excluding qualifying casino-style products from swaps
The exclusion takes effect October 19 and is subject to conditions for providers and trading structure.
Published CFTC rule excluding qualifying casino-style products from swapsDates; section II; amendment to 17 CFR 1.3, paragraph (7)CFTC publishes its proposed event-contract swap definition
The proposal would expressly include event contracts based on sports, politics, culture and weather in the swap definition. Comments are due November 18, 2026. Publication opens consultation; it does not make the proposed definition a final rule or decide Connecticut's cases.
[20]CFTC publishes a proposal to include event contracts in the swap definition
The proposed definition expressly covers sports and other event contracts. Comments are due November 18; it is not a final rule.
CFTC publishes a proposal to include event contracts in the swap definitionSummary, dates and proposed rule text
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection
The Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection argues that the sports-event products named in its September announcement must comply with the state's gambling licensing and consumer-protection requirements.
Sources (1)
- Connecticut announces nine prediction-market cease-and-desist orders · Office of the Governor of ConnecticutOpening paragraphs; Commissioner Cafferelli quotation; nine-operator list
Disputed claim
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
The CFTC argues that federal commodities law gives it exclusive authority over qualifying event contracts traded on federally regulated exchanges and displaces the Connecticut gambling restrictions challenged in its federal complaint.
Sources (2)
- United States and CFTC v. Connecticut: federal complaint · Commodity Futures Trading CommissionCase 3:26-cv-00498, Document 1; paragraphs 1–10, 22–24 and 68–71; requested relief, printed pages 23 onward
- CFTC announces lawsuits against Connecticut, Arizona and Illinois · Commodity Futures Trading CommissionRelease 9206-26; opening paragraph and Chairman Michael S. Selig quotation
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
12 responses. First 6 shown initially. Newest first.
William TongAttorney General of Connecticut, in a statement to SBC AmericasBefore this statement
Given after Underdog filed suit in federal court on September 15 against Tong, DCP Commissioner Bryan T. Cafferelli and DCP gaming director Kristofer Gilman, challenging the state’s cease-and-desist orders on preemption grounds.
"This is nothing more than the recycling of failed arguments from other prediction markets. Multiple courts have affirmed that sports event contracts are no different than sports betting and are not magically shielded by federal law."
Defended or excusedCase context: Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?
Full statement and sources
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong dismissed Underdog’s federal lawsuit as a reuse of arguments other prediction markets have already lost, and said courts have repeatedly held that sports event contracts are sports betting and are not protected from state law by federal regulation.
After the statement
Tong does not identify the rulings he refers to. A separate strand, Connecticut’s own suit against Kalshi, was stayed on September 17 pending a decision on whether it returns to state court.
SBC Americas: Connecticut Attorney General William Tong on the Underdog suitStatement provided to SBC Americas, mid-article.Why this label?
On whether Connecticut may regulate sports prediction markets as gambling, Tong defends the state’s authority to do so, which is the conduct under scrutiny here. He asserts both that the contracts are indistinguishable from sports betting and that federal commodities regulation does not displace state law, the two propositions the preemption argument turns on. He is the first Connecticut law-enforcement principal recorded in this case, alongside the consumer-protection commissioner.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
UnderdogPlaintiff; prediction-market operatorBefore this statement
Filing suit against Connecticut officials in federal court.
"Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. v. Tong, No. 3:26-cv-01499 (D. Conn.), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on Commodity Exchange Act preemption grounds."
Challenged the characterizationCase context: Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?
Full statement and sources
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. and UDM, LLC filed a federal lawsuit against Connecticut officials (DCP Commissioner Bryan Cafferelli, AG William Tong, and Kristofer Gilman) on September 15, 2026, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that the Commodity Exchange Act preempts Connecticut's enforcement against its prediction-market contracts.
After the statement
The suit follows Connecticut's enforcement actions against several prediction-market operators, including Underdog, the prior week.
Why this label?
Underdog's federal suit challenges Connecticut's legal authority to regulate its prediction-market contracts as gambling, asserting federal preemption under the Commodity Exchange Act — directly disputing the case's central legal question from a new party distinct from Kalshi's existing litigation.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Bryan T. CafferelliCommissioner, Connecticut Department of Consumer ProtectionDirectly involved Before this statement
Follow-up statement on the status of Connecticut's enforcement actions against prediction-market operators.
"We have received a handful of responses to our actions last week... We are working with those who have responded on next steps."
Defended or excusedCase context: Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?
Full statement and sources
DCP Commissioner Bryan Cafferelli said Connecticut has received responses from four of the nine prediction-market companies it acted against (Novig, ProphetX, Gemini, Webull) and is working with them on next steps, while five others, including Underdog, had not formally responded.
After the statement
Four of the nine companies named (Novig, ProphetX, Gemini, Webull) were said to be engaging with DCP; five (including Underdog) had not formally responded.
Why this label?
Cafferelli continues defending Connecticut's enforcement posture, reporting on company compliance, consistent with his existing defense already documented in this case.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Diana GoodeExecutive director, Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling Before this statement
Goode praises existing safeguards and the officials enforcing them.
"We support the state’s efforts, including seeking judicial remedies"
Defended or excusedCase context: Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?
Full statement and sources
Goode supports Connecticut's enforcement to preserve gambling safeguards.
After the statement
She supports judicial remedies when necessary to preserve those protections.
Diana Goode supports state enforcement · Office of the Governor of ConnecticutDiana Goode quotation; final paragraphWhy this label?
Her express approval supports enforcement; it does not merely describe it.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Ned LamontGovernor of ConnecticutBefore this statement
Lamont describes consumer risks while announcing state enforcement.
"they are not adhering to Connecticut’s consumer protection standards"
Defended or excusedCase context: Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?
Full statement and sources
Lamont accuses prediction markets of disregarding safeguards and misleading consumers about legality.
After the statement
He contrasts the alleged conduct with Connecticut's regulated wagering framework.
Ned Lamont criticizes prediction-market protections · Office of the Governor of ConnecticutGovernor Lamont's second quoted paragraphWhy this label?
The case asks whether Connecticut can regulate sports prediction markets as gambling, and the conduct under scrutiny is the state's enforcement. Lamont announced the state's actions against nine prediction-market companies and accused them of not adhering to Connecticut's consumer protection standards, which supports the enforcement, so we labeled it Defended or excused. The closest competing label is Condemned, which here would mean opposing state regulation of the markets; his criticism is aimed at the companies, not at the state's action. Evidence: the governor's announcement.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Jacki McGavickKalshi spokespersonBefore this statement
CT Insider requested comment on the governor’s news conference.
"You don't protect consumers by blocking exchanges that are actually regulated"
CondemnedCase context: Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?
Full statement and sources
McGavick argues that blocking federally supervised exchanges undermines consumer safety.
After the statement
She argues restrictions favor offshore markets.
Jacki McGavick responds to Connecticut · CT InsiderMcGavick statement following the governor's September 10 news conferenceWhy this label?
She criticizes the restriction itself, arguing it harms consumers.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Show fewer responses
Bryan T. CafferelliConnecticut Commissioner of Consumer ProtectionDirectly involved Before this statement
The governor's announcement describes DCP's nine cease-and-desist orders. Cafferelli introduces this excerpt as his account of what Connecticut law requires.
"sports betting may only be offered by legal, licensed sportsbooks that adhere to our regulations and technical standards"
Defended or excusedResponding to: The Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection argues that the sports-event products named in its September announcement must comply with the state's gambling licensing and consumer-protection requirements.
Full statement and sources
Bryan T. Cafferelli defended Connecticut's licensing requirements while announcing enforcement against sports prediction-market products.
After the statement
He connects enforcement to protecting consumers from misleading practices. His position supports the state's legal interpretation; the quotation does not independently prove a violation by each recipient.
Connecticut announces nine prediction-market cease-and-desist orders · Office of the Governor of ConnecticutOpening paragraphs; Commissioner Cafferelli quotation; nine-operator listWhy this label?
Cafferelli invokes mandatory state licensing and consumer protection to justify the announced enforcement. This substantively supports the state's action; it does more than dispute terminology for the products.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
- William TongAttorney General of Connecticut
Before this statement
Tong identifies protections for minors, people at risk of problem gambling, customer funds and personal information; those safeguards are the referent of the excerpt.
"None of that is happening now on Kalshi, and we’re suing to put a stop to it"
Defended or excusedCase context: Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?
Full statement and sources
Tong alleges that Kalshi lacks safeguards Connecticut requires and rejects its argument that federal law shields its sports contracts from state regulation.
After the statement
His statement appears in the announcement of Connecticut's lawsuit. It records his allegations and enforcement rationale, not a finding that Kalshi committed the alleged violations.
William Tong criticizes Kalshi's consumer safeguards · Office of the Connecticut Attorney GeneralAttorney General Tong's quotation; final sentence after the list of consumer protectionsWhy this label?
The case asks whether Connecticut can regulate sports prediction markets as gambling, and the conduct under scrutiny is the state's enforcement. Tong says Kalshi lacks the safeguards Connecticut requires and that the state is suing to stop it, which supports the enforcement, so we labeled it Defended or excused. The closest competing label is Condemned, which here would mean opposing state regulation of the markets; his criticism is aimed at Kalshi, not at the state's action. Evidence: the attorney general's announcement.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Jovy DedajHead of litigation at Kalshi Before this statement
Responding to Connecticut's lawsuit, Dedaj argues that officials are seeking immediate restrictions against Kalshi while other prediction markets continue operating.
"This unequal treatment is exactly why federal oversight is necessary."
CondemnedCase context: Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?
Full statement and sources
Dedaj criticizes what he describes as selective Connecticut enforcement against Kalshi and argues for federal oversight.
After the statement
The quoted sentence concludes his argument for federal oversight. This August statement predates the broader September enforcement announcement; the alleged unequal treatment is Dedaj's position.
Jovy Dedaj responds to Connecticut's lawsuit · Jovy DedajPost 2092719610936377746; concluding sentence on unequal treatment and federal oversightWhy this label?
Dedaj's unequal-treatment argument criticizes Connecticut's enforcement choices. It substantively rejects the state's approach rather than merely disputing terminology.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Michael S. SeligChairman of the Commodity Futures Trading CommissionDirectly involvedBefore this statement
The CFTC announces federal lawsuits against three states, including Connecticut, over restrictions on CFTC-registered markets.
"The CFTC will continue to safeguard its exclusive regulatory authority over these markets and defend market participants against overzealous state regulators"
CondemnedCase context: Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?
Full statement and sources
Michael S. Selig criticized state restrictions on federally regulated event markets when the CFTC announced lawsuits against Connecticut, Arizona and Illinois.
After the statement
Selig argues that a national framework better protects consumers than conflicting state obligations. This April statement predates Connecticut's September nine-company announcement and is included as background to the same jurisdiction dispute.
CFTC announces lawsuits against Connecticut, Arizona and Illinois · Commodity Futures Trading CommissionRelease 9206-26; opening paragraph and Chairman Michael S. Selig quotationUnited States and CFTC v. Connecticut: federal complaint · Commodity Futures Trading CommissionCase 3:26-cv-00498, Document 1; paragraphs 1–10, 22–24 and 68–71; requested relief, printed pages 23 onwardWhy this label?
Selig criticizes the state regulators' intervention and argues that inconsistent requirements undermine consumer protection. That is substantive criticism of the challenged restrictions, beyond a disagreement over how to describe the contracts.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Mohegan TribeJoint testimony of the Mohegan Tribe and Mashantucket Pequot Tribal NationBefore this statement
HB 5038 proposed age restrictions on prediction-market participation.
"prediction markets involving gaming (including sporting events) are already illegal in Connecticut"
Defended or excusedCase context: Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?
Full statement and sources
The two tribes jointly defended Connecticut's prohibition of sports prediction markets. They opposed a narrower age-restriction bill because they said it could legitimize products already barred by state law.
After the statement
The tribes argued that the proposed restrictions could legitimize products they considered already illegal.
Joint Mohegan and Mashantucket Pequot testimony on HB 5038February 18 joint testimony, pages 1-2Why this label?
Defends state prohibition; opposing a narrower bill does not mean supporting the markets.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Paul GrewalChief Legal Officer of Coinbase, writing in a thread on X Before this statement
Coinbase filed lawsuits against gaming regulators in Connecticut, Illinois and Michigan on December 18, 2025, seeking declaratory judgments that prediction markets fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. Connecticut's Department of Consumer Protection had sent demands to Kalshi, Robinhood and Crypto.com in early December.
"State efforts to control or outright block these markets stifle innovation and violate the law Prediction markets are fundamentally different from sportsbooks. Casinos win only if you lose and set odds to maximize their profits Prediction markets are neutral exchanges, indifferent to price, that match buyers and sellers."
CondemnedCase context: Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?
Full statement and sources
Coinbase Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal wrote on X that state efforts to control or block prediction markets violate the law. He said prediction markets differ from sportsbooks because they are neutral exchanges that match buyers and sellers.
After the statement
On September 10, 2026, Connecticut's Department of Consumer Protection issued cease-and-desist orders to nine companies, including Coinbase, over sports event contracts.
Coinbase files lawsuits in 3 states over attempts to regulate prediction marketsParagraphs quoting Grewal's thread on XCoinbase Sues Three States Over Prediction Market RegulationsParagraphs quoting Grewal's thread on XConnecticut announces nine prediction-market cease-and-desist orders · Office of the Governor of ConnecticutOpening paragraphs; Commissioner Cafferelli quotation; nine-operator listWhy this label?
The case asks whether Connecticut can regulate sports prediction markets as gambling. Grewal wrote that state efforts to control or block these markets stifle innovation and violate the law, and that prediction markets are neutral exchanges that differ from sportsbooks. That expressly rejects state regulation of these markets as gambling, so we labeled it Condemned.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(32)
Official statement
Connecticut announces nine prediction-market cease-and-desist orders
Relevant passage: Opening paragraphs; Commissioner Cafferelli quotation; nine-operator list
Excerpt
"sports betting may only be offered by legal, licensed sportsbooks that adhere to our regulations and technical standards"
About this source
Official account of September enforcement and the state's allegations. September 10 is the announcement date, not a verified signature date for every order. This announcement is not a finding that each named company committed every alleged violation.
- Author
- Office of Governor Ned Lamont
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
CFTC publishes a proposal to include event contracts in the swap definition
Relevant passage: Summary, dates and proposed rule text
About this source
The proposed definition expressly covers sports and other event contracts. Comments are due November 18; it is not a final rule.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Published CFTC rule excluding qualifying casino-style products from swaps
Relevant passage: Dates; section II; amendment to 17 CFR 1.3, paragraph (7)
About this source
The exclusion takes effect October 19 and is subject to conditions for providers and trading structure.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Supreme Court docket: Flaherty v. KalshiEX, No. 26-299
Relevant passage: October 7-8, 2026 amicus filing entries
About this source
The official docket records filing dates. The case is New Jersey's petition, not Connecticut's district-court action.
- Accessed
Original text
American Gaming Association files a sports-contract amicus brief
Relevant passage: Interest and summary, pages 1-5
About this source
The gaming-industry group argues that competing operators should face state and tribal safeguards.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Tribes and tribal organizations urge review of sports-contract jurisdiction
Relevant passage: Interest and summary, pages 1-4; appendix listing amici
About this source
The coalition argues that prediction-market sports betting threatens tribal sovereignty and gaming revenue.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Gary Gensler files a brief on sports contracts and federal jurisdiction
Relevant passage: Introduction and summary, pages 2-8
About this source
Gensler disputes the claim that Congress transferred sports-betting jurisdiction to the CFTC.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Christopher Dodd files a brief on the scope of the Dodd-Frank Act
Relevant passage: Interest and introduction, pages 1-6
About this source
Dodd argues that Congress preserved state and tribal gaming authority. The brief concerns New Jersey's petition.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Ohio, Connecticut and other states urge Supreme Court review
Relevant passage: Introduction, summary and state signatories
About this source
The joint brief supports New Jersey's petition and describes the dispute over state gambling authority.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
NFL brief on state regulation of prediction-market sports bets
Relevant passage: Cover; printed pages 3-7, Introduction and Summary of Argument
About this source
October 8 amicus brief in Supreme Court case 26-299, Flaherty and Davenport v. Kalshi. This is a New Jersey proceeding concerning the federal-jurisdiction question also at issue in Connecticut; it is not a Connecticut ruling.
- Author
- National Football League
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Connecticut Economic Update, August 3, 2026
Relevant passage: Pages 2-6, 'Is That Even Legal? Prediction Markets Gaining Popularity'; page 5 discusses Connecticut litigation.
About this source
The report distinguishes federal-preemption claims, state consumer protections and possible business benefits.
- Author
- Office of the Connecticut State Comptroller
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Scanlon calls for more attention to prediction markets
Relevant passage: August 3 dateline; Scanlon's quotation beginning 'Prediction markets are literally everywhere'.
About this source
Scanlon announces an economic update examining prediction markets, consumer risks and business uses.
- Author
- Office of the Connecticut State Comptroller
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Kalshi v. Connecticut officials, district court opinion, docket 94
Relevant passage: Opinion pages 8-11, regulatory history and procedural history
About this source
Connecticut's consumer-protection department sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter alleging unlicensed sports wagering. Kalshi sued Connecticut officials, seeking to prevent state enforcement against its sports-event contracts. Under the parties' joint stipulation, the court ordered Connecticut officials to refrain from the challenged enforcement while Kalshi's motion was pending. The federal court heard oral argument on Kalshi's request for a preliminary injunction against Connecticut enforcement.
- Author
- U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
- Accessed
Original text
Joint Mohegan and Mashantucket Pequot testimony on HB 5038
Relevant passage: February 18 joint testimony, pages 1-2
About this source
The two tribes jointly defended Connecticut's prohibition of sports prediction markets. They opposed a narrower age-restriction bill because they said it could legitimize products already barred by state law.
- Author
- Mohegan Tribe and Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation
- Accessed
Reporting
Coinbase Sues Three States Over Prediction Market Regulations
Relevant passage: Paragraphs quoting Grewal's thread on X
Excerpt
"“Prediction markets are fundamentally different from sportsbooks,” Grewal wrote in his thread on X."
About this source
PYMNTS report published December 19, 2025 on Coinbase's lawsuits in Connecticut, Illinois and Michigan. It quotes Grewal's X thread and gives background on Connecticut's earlier demands to prediction-market platforms.
- Author
- CPI
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Coinbase files lawsuits in 3 states over attempts to regulate prediction markets
Relevant passage: Paragraphs quoting Grewal's thread on X
Excerpt
""State efforts to control or outright block these markets stifle innovation and violate the law," Grewal wrote."
About this source
CoinDesk report published December 19, 2025 on Coinbase's lawsuits against Connecticut, Illinois and Michigan. It quotes Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal's thread on X and links the posts.
- Author
- Jamie Crawley
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
SBC Americas: Connecticut Attorney General William Tong on the Underdog suit
Relevant passage: Statement provided to SBC Americas, mid-article.
Excerpt
"“This is nothing more than the recycling of failed arguments from other prediction markets,” Tong said. “Multiple courts have affirmed that sports event contracts are no different than sports betting and are not magically shielded by federal law.”"
About this source
Statement given directly to the trade outlet rather than issued as a press release; the Connecticut Attorney General’s press page carries nothing on prediction markets after September 10. The same quotation appears in CT Insider syndication, where it is attributed to “an email statement Friday,” i.e. September 18, which conflicts with this outlet’s September 17 publication date.
- Author
- SBC Americas
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Docket: State of Connecticut v. KalshiEX LLC, No. 3:26-cv-01382 (D. Conn.) — proceedings stayed pending remand
Relevant passage: Entry 39, order of 17 September 2026.
Excerpt
"ORDER re 38 Stipulation. The proposed stipulation is So Ordered. All pending deadlines in this action, including Kalshi’s deadline to respond to the Complaint, the Rule 26(f) conference, and the deadline to submit the Rule 26(f) report, are stayed until the Court adjudicates the issue of remand. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 9/17/2026."
About this source
Connecticut’s own suit against Kalshi was removed to federal court, and Judge Vernon D. Oliver has now stayed every deadline until he decides whether to send it back to state court. That makes remand, rather than the merits of the gambling question, the gating issue in this strand. No press coverage of this order was found.
- Author
- U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, via CourtListener
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Docket: Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. v. Tong, No. 3:26-cv-01499 (D. Conn.)
Relevant passage: Entry 1 (complaint) and the case-assignment entry.
Excerpt
"COMPLAINT against BRYAN T. CAFFERELLI, KRISTOFER GILMAN, WILLIAM TONG ( Filing fee $405 receipt number ACTDC-8759295.), filed by UNDERDOG EXCHANGE DCM, INC., UDM, LLC d/b/a UNDERDOG PREDICT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - UnderDog Predict Cease & Desist, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Porzio, Steven) (Entered: 09/15/2026)"
About this source
Federal docket for a new action by Underdog against Connecticut’s Attorney General, the Commissioner of Consumer Protection and the DCP gaming director, assigned to District Judge Stefan R. Underhill. It reverses the posture of the existing litigation: here a targeted company is the plaintiff. The docket records the filing date as September 15, 2026; some trade coverage dates it September 16.
- Author
- U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, via CourtListener
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Prediction markets move to halt Connecticut enforcement
Excerpt
"We have received a handful of responses to our actions last week... We are working with those who have responded on next steps."
About this source
Hearst CT Insider report (via Yahoo Finance) on DCP Commissioner Bryan Cafferelli's September 15, 2026 follow-up statement on which companies have engaged with Connecticut's enforcement actions.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. v. Tong (D. Conn., filed Sept. 15, 2026)
Excerpt
"Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. v. Tong, No. 3:26-cv-01499 (D. Conn.), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on Commodity Exchange Act preemption grounds."
About this source
Federal court docket for Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. and UDM, LLC v. Tong, filed September 15, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for Connecticut, seeking declaratory/injunctive relief on Commodity Exchange Act preemption grounds.
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
The Gambling Wire: CFTC, Robinhood Escalate Connecticut Prediction Market Fight
Excerpt
"The CFTC filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on Sept. 11 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut... On the same day, Robinhood asked to intervene in the CFTC lawsuit against the state."
About this source
Trade-press report on the CFTC's federal injunction motion against Connecticut and Robinhood's motion to intervene in the same suit, corroborated independently by on360.ca and sccgmanagement.com.
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Diana Goode supports state enforcement
Relevant passage: Diana Goode quotation; final paragraph
About this source
Goode's support for enforcing Connecticut's gambling safeguards.
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
William Tong criticizes Kalshi's consumer safeguards
Relevant passage: Attorney General Tong's quotation; final sentence after the list of consumer protections
About this source
Official announcement of Connecticut's lawsuit against Kalshi. Tong's statement sets out the state's allegations and rationale for suing; it is not a judicial finding.
- Author
- Office of the Connecticut Attorney General
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Ned Lamont criticizes prediction-market protections
Relevant passage: Governor Lamont's second quoted paragraph
About this source
Lamont's allegations accompanying the September enforcement announcement.
- Published
- Accessed
Original post
Jovy Dedaj responds to Connecticut's lawsuit
About this source
Dedaj responds to the August lawsuit against Kalshi. His assertion of selective enforcement predates Connecticut's broader September actions.
- Author
- Jovy Dedaj
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Jacki McGavick responds to Connecticut
Relevant passage: McGavick statement following the governor's September 10 news conference
About this source
Direct quotation in original reporting.
- Author
- Ken Dixon
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Connecticut announces a separate lawsuit against Kalshi
Relevant passage: August 26, 2026 date header; opening paragraph; paragraph acknowledging Kalshi's Second Circuit appeal
About this source
Announcement of a state lawsuit seeking to stop Kalshi's sports wagers. Keep it distinct from Kalshi's earlier federal case and the September action naming nine other brands. The announcement establishes the state's allegations and requested remedy, not the outcome of its suit.
- Author
- Office of the Connecticut Attorney General
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
KalshiEX LLC v. Cafferelli: injunction pending appeal denied
Relevant passage: Case 3:25-cv-02016, Document 99; printed pages 1–2 and 7
About this source
Signed August 15. The district court denied Kalshi's request for an injunction pending appeal and alternative short-term administrative relief. This historical order does not by itself establish the current appellate stay position.
- Author
- Vernon D. Oliver, United States District Judge
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
KalshiEX LLC v. Cafferelli: preliminary injunction denied
Relevant passage: Case 3:25-cv-02016, Document 94; printed pages 13–14, 23–32 and 37–38; page 17 note 38
About this source
Order signed August 7 and issued August 10, as confirmed in Document 99. The court denied preliminary relief and evaluated Kalshi's likelihood of success; it did not enter a final merits judgment or decide the legality of every prediction-market product. Its analysis concerns sporting outcomes and in-game occurrences.
- Author
- Vernon D. Oliver, United States District Judge
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
CFTC announces lawsuits against Connecticut, Arizona and Illinois
Relevant passage: Release 9206-26; opening paragraph and Chairman Michael S. Selig quotation
Excerpt
"The CFTC will continue to safeguard its exclusive regulatory authority over these markets and defend market participants against overzealous state regulators"
About this source
The agency's April announcement identifies Connecticut among three states it sued. Selig's quoted position concerns that earlier dispute; it is not a response to the September orders. His description of federal authority is the agency's position.
- Author
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
United States and CFTC v. Connecticut: federal complaint
Relevant passage: Case 3:26-cv-00498, Document 1; paragraphs 1–10, 22–24 and 68–71; requested relief, printed pages 23 onward
About this source
Federal plaintiffs argue that federal commodities law displaces the challenged Connecticut restrictions on qualifying exchange-traded event contracts. This complaint states their legal position and requests relief; it is not a judicial ruling. It predates the September nine-company announcement.
- Author
- United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Published
- Accessed
Corrections
(2)
Corrections address errors in our reporting or labels. When a speaker changes their position, we add a separate statement and link it to the earlier one.
Classification correction
Correction to: Statement by William Tong
- Previous classification
- Position Event #548 classified Attorney General Tong's statement as "Condemned," treating his criticism of Kalshi as opposition.
- Corrected classification
- Tong's statement supports Connecticut's lawsuit against Kalshi, so the classification is "Defended or excused."
In this case the labels are measured against Connecticut's regulation of the markets: Condemned means opposing that regulation and Defended or excused means supporting it. The statement criticized the companies while supporting the state's enforcement, so it was mislabeled. The quotation, summary and source are unchanged.
This corrects an editorial classification.
Official announcement of Connecticut's lawsuit against Kalshi. Tong's statement sets out the state's allegations and rationale for suing; it is not a judicial finding.
Classification correction
Correction to: Statement by Ned Lamont
- Previous classification
- Position Event #547 classified Governor Lamont's statement as "Condemned," treating his criticism of the companies as opposition.
- Corrected classification
- Lamont's statement supports Connecticut's enforcement against the prediction-market companies, so the classification is "Defended or excused."
In this case the labels are measured against Connecticut's regulation of the markets: Condemned means opposing that regulation and Defended or excused means supporting it. The statement criticized the companies while supporting the state's enforcement, so it was mislabeled. The quotation, summary and source are unchanged.
This corrects an editorial classification.
Lamont's allegations accompanying the September enforcement announcement.
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/connecticut-sports-prediction-markets-gambling-dispute
The Dispute Index. "Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?". First published: 2026-09-14. Last updated: 2026-09-17. https://disputeindex.com/cases/connecticut-sports-prediction-markets-gambling-dispute