Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
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.
Question in dispute
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.
Overview
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
Jacki McGavickCommentedCredit: Gage Skidmore
Timeline
5 timeline entries on this page. Dates: April 2, 2026 to September 10, 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.
Sources
Commodity Futures Trading Commission · Source details
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.
Sources
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut · Source details
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut · Source details
District 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.
Sources
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut · Source details
Connecticut announces a separate suit against Kalshi
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.
Sources
Office of the Connecticut Attorney General · Source details
Connecticut announces orders targeting nine prediction-market brands
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.
Sources
Office of the Governor of Connecticut · Source details
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
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.
Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection
Sources
Office of the Governor of Connecticut · Source details
Connecticut announces nine prediction-market cease-and-desist orders - Office of the Governor of ConnecticutOpening paragraphs; Commissioner Cafferelli quotation; nine-operator list
Disputed claim
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.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Sources
Commodity Futures Trading Commission · Source details
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 onwardCommodity Futures Trading Commission · Source details
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
Latest recorded positions: 7. Dates: April 2, 2026 to September 10, 2026
Choose any combination. Selected filters stay active until you remove them or choose All responses.
7 responses on this page
Defended or excusedDiana GoodeGoode supports Connecticut's enforcement to preserve gambling safeguards. "We support the state’s efforts, including seeking judicial remedies"
Read context and sources
Responding to
Response to the case
Why we used this label
Her express approval supports enforcement; it does not merely describe it.
Before the statement
Goode praises existing safeguards and the officials enforcing them.
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 paragraphCondemnedNed LamontLamont accuses prediction markets of disregarding safeguards and misleading consumers about legality. "they are not adhering to Connecticut’s consumer protection standards"
Read context and sources
Responding to
Response to the case
Why we used this label
He criticizes alleged failures and misleading assurances, beyond disputing terminology.
Before the statement
Lamont describes consumer risks while announcing state enforcement.
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 paragraphCondemned 
Jacki McGavickMcGavick argues that blocking federally supervised exchanges undermines consumer safety."You don't protect consumers by blocking exchanges that are actually regulated"
Read context and sources
Responding to
Response to the case
Why we used this label
She criticizes the restriction itself, arguing it harms consumers.
Before the statement
CT Insider requested comment on the governor’s news conference.
After the statement
She argues restrictions favor offshore markets.
Jacki McGavick responds to Connecticut - CT InsiderMcGavick statement following the governor's September 10 news conferenceDefended or excusedBryan T. CafferelliDirectly involvedBryan T. Cafferelli defended Connecticut's licensing requirements while announcing enforcement against sports prediction-market products. "sports betting may only be offered by legal, licensed sportsbooks that adhere to our regulations and technical standards"
Read context and sources
Responding 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.
Why we used 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.
Before the 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.
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 listCondemnedWilliam TongTong alleges that Kalshi lacks safeguards Connecticut requires and rejects its argument that federal law shields its sports contracts from state regulation. "None of that is happening now on Kalshi, and we’re suing to put a stop to it"
Read context and sources
Responding to
Response to the case
Why we used this label
Tong denounces alleged failures to protect consumers and says the state is suing to stop them. This expresses substantive criticism, not only a dispute over how sports contracts are characterized.
Before the 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.
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 protectionsCondemnedJovy DedajDedaj criticizes what he describes as selective Connecticut enforcement against Kalshi and argues for federal oversight. "This unequal treatment is exactly why federal oversight is necessary."
Read context and sources
Responding to
Response to the case
Why we used this label
Dedaj's unequal-treatment argument criticizes Connecticut's enforcement choices. It substantively rejects the state's approach rather than merely disputing terminology.
Before the statement
Responding to Connecticut's lawsuit, Dedaj argues that officials are seeking immediate restrictions against Kalshi while other prediction markets continue operating.
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 oversight
Show fewer responses
CondemnedMichael S. SeligDirectly involvedMichael S. Selig criticized state restrictions on federally regulated event markets when the CFTC announced lawsuits against Connecticut, Arizona and Illinois. "The CFTC will continue to safeguard its exclusive regulatory authority over these markets and defend market participants against overzealous state regulators"
Read context and sources
Responding to
Response to the case
Why we used 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.
Before the statement
The CFTC announces federal lawsuits against three states, including Connecticut, over restrictions on CFTC-registered markets.
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 onward
Sources
Connecticut announces nine prediction-market cease-and-desist ordersOffice of the Governor of Connecticut
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.
Source details
- Author
- Office of Governor Ned Lamont
- Published
- Accessed
Diana Goode supports state enforcementOffice of the Governor of Connecticut
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.
Source details
- Published
- Accessed
William Tong criticizes Kalshi's consumer safeguardsOffice of the Connecticut Attorney General
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.
Source details
- Author
- Office of the Connecticut Attorney General
- Published
- Accessed
Ned Lamont criticizes prediction-market protectionsOffice of the Governor of Connecticut
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.
Source details
- Published
- Accessed
Jovy Dedaj responds to Connecticut's lawsuitJovy Dedaj
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.
Source details
- Author
- Jovy Dedaj
- Published
- Accessed
Show fewer sources
Jacki McGavick responds to ConnecticutCT Insider
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.
Source details
- Author
- Ken Dixon
- Published
- Accessed
Connecticut announces a separate lawsuit against KalshiOffice of the Connecticut Attorney General
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.
Source details
- Author
- Office of the Connecticut Attorney General
- Published
- Accessed
KalshiEX LLC v. Cafferelli: injunction pending appeal deniedUnited States District Court for the District of Connecticut
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.
Source details
- Author
- Vernon D. Oliver, United States District Judge
- Published
- Accessed
KalshiEX LLC v. Cafferelli: preliminary injunction deniedUnited States District Court for the District of Connecticut
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.
Source details
- Author
- Vernon D. Oliver, United States District Judge
- Published
- Accessed
CFTC announces lawsuits against Connecticut, Arizona and IllinoisCommodity Futures Trading Commission
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.
Source details
- Author
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Published
- Accessed
United States and CFTC v. Connecticut: federal complaintCommodity Futures Trading Commission
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.
Source details
- Author
- United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Published
- Accessed
Corrections
(0)
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.
No corrections on this page.