Disputes involving markets in contracts whose payouts depend on future events.
Published coverage on this page: 3 cases · 17 statements. Statements are ordered newest first.
Utah's attorney general charged Kalshi and co-founders Tarek Mansour and Luana Lopes Lara with felony gambling promotion over sports wagers placed from Utah. Kalshi calls the case political overreach, and the CFTC says federal law overrides Utah's gambling laws for its exchanges.
Published
Read the case
Published
Published
Labels describe a response to the linked claim or the action explained in the statement summary. Choose one or more.
17 matching statements
Role at the time: KalshiEX LLC, in a statement to FOX 13 News
Statement summary
Kalshi says Utah's criminal case against the company and its co-founders is a crazy overreach and that the state is clearly playing politics, and says it expects to stop the case in court as it did in Arizona.
“This is a crazy overreach; Utah is clearly playing politics. We look forward to putting a stop to this in court, just like we did in Arizona.”
What this label refers to
Relative to its offering of sports event contracts in Utah, Kalshi defends continuing its business by rejecting the state's criminal enforcement as political overreach.
Role at the time: Utah Attorney General, in a statement to FOX 13 News
Statement summary
Utah Attorney General Derek Brown says gambling is illegal in Utah whether a person places the bet, runs the game or promotes it, that neither the prediction market label nor federal registration changes that, and that Kalshi kept taking bets from Utahns after a federal court ruled that the state's gambling laws apply to it.
Quotation excerpt
“Gambling is illegal in Utah, whether you place the bet, run the game, or promote it. Calling it a ‘prediction market’ doesn’t change what it is, and being federally registered doesn’t put a company above the law. A federal court has already…”
“Gambling is illegal in Utah, whether you place the bet, run the game, or promote it. Calling it a ‘prediction market’ doesn’t change what it is, and being federally registered doesn’t put a company above the law. A federal court has already ruled that Utah’s gambling laws apply to Kalshi. Kalshi kept taking bets from Utahns anyway. That is illegal, and we’re putting a stop to it”
What this label refers to
Relative to Kalshi's offering of sports event contracts to Utah users, Brown calls the offering illegal gambling and says the state is putting a stop to it.
Role at the time: Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, in a CFTC press release
Statement summary
CFTC Chairman Michael Selig says event contracts serve hedging and investment purposes and give the public information about the outcome of future events, that Congress made the CFTC the sole regulator of these markets, and that the commission will defend its exclusive jurisdiction.
Quotation excerpt
“Event contracts do not just serve hedging and investment purposes—they also provide the public with information about the outcome of future events. Congress entrusted the CFTC to be the federal regulator with sole responsibility to oversee…”
“Event contracts do not just serve hedging and investment purposes—they also provide the public with information about the outcome of future events. Congress entrusted the CFTC to be the federal regulator with sole responsibility to oversee these markets. As I’ve said before, the CFTC has the expertise and responsibility to defend its exclusive jurisdiction over commodity derivatives, and that’s exactly what we’ll do.”
What this label refers to
Relative to Kalshi's offering of event contracts, Selig defends their public information, hedging and investment functions. His jurisdiction argument supplies the legal basis for federal oversight.
Role at the time: Commodity Futures Trading Commission, co-plaintiff with the United States in the federal complaint against Utah
Statement summary
In its federal complaint against Utah, the CFTC argues that Congress, by excluding transactions on CFTC-registered exchanges from the federal definition of a bet or wager, treated transactions regulated under the Commodity Exchange Act as something other than gambling.
“For Congress, then, CEA-regulated transactions are not gambling.”
What this label refers to
Relative to Kalshi's offering, the joint complaint challenges treating federally regulated event contracts as gambling.
Role at the time: Novig co-founder, speaking in a CNBC interview
Statement summary
Fortinsky says Novig has no reason to apologize and remains proud of the ad. He says its purpose was to explain the platform rather than represent women athletes.
“Ultimately, I think we have nothing to apologize for and are very proud of the work that we did,”
What this label refers to
He explicitly defends the disputed advertising campaign against the criticism that it harmed women's sport.
Role at the time: Attorney General of Connecticut, in a statement to SBC Americas
Statement summary
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.
“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.”
What this label refers to
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.
Role at the time: Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection
Statement summary
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.
“We have received a handful of responses to our actions last week... We are working with those who have responded on next steps.”
What this label refers to
Cafferelli continues defending Connecticut's enforcement posture, reporting on company compliance, consistent with his existing defense already documented in this case.
Role at the time: Plaintiff; prediction-market operator
Statement summary
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.
“Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. v. Tong, No. 3:26-cv-01499 (D. Conn.), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on Commodity Exchange Act preemption grounds.”
What this label refers to
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.
Role at the time: Executive director, Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling
Statement summary
Goode supports Connecticut's enforcement to preserve gambling safeguards.
“We support the state’s efforts, including seeking judicial remedies”
What this label refers to
Her express approval supports enforcement; it does not merely describe it.
Role at the time: Governor of Connecticut
Statement summary
Lamont accuses prediction markets of disregarding safeguards and misleading consumers about legality.
“they are not adhering to Connecticut’s consumer protection standards”
What this label refers to
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.
Role at the time: Kalshi spokesperson
Statement summary
McGavick argues that blocking federally supervised exchanges undermines consumer safety.
“You don't protect consumers by blocking exchanges that are actually regulated”
What this label refers to
She criticizes the restriction itself, arguing it harms consumers.
Role at the time: Connecticut Commissioner of Consumer Protection
Response to this 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.
“sports betting may only be offered by legal, licensed sportsbooks that adhere to our regulations and technical standards”
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.
Role at the time: Attorney General of Connecticut
Statement summary
Tong 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”
What this label refers to
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.
Role at the time: Head of litigation at Kalshi
Statement summary
Dedaj 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.”
What this label refers to
Dedaj's unequal-treatment argument criticizes Connecticut's enforcement choices. It substantively rejects the state's approach rather than merely disputing terminology.
Role at the time: Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Statement summary
Michael 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”
What this label refers to
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.
Role at the time: Joint testimony of the Mohegan Tribe and Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation
Statement summary
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.
“prediction markets involving gaming (including sporting events) are already illegal in Connecticut”
What this label refers to
Defends state prohibition; opposing a narrower bill does not mean supporting the markets.
Role at the time: Chief Legal Officer of Coinbase, writing in a thread on X
Statement summary
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.
Quotation excerpt
“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…”
“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.”
What this label refers to
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.
Derek Brown is a Republican lawyer and politician who has been Utah's attorney general since January 2025. He represented House District 49, covering Sandy and Cottonwood Heights, in the Utah House of Representatives from 2011 to 2014, and then served as deputy chief of staff and state director for U.S. Senator Mike Lee. He earlier practiced constitutional and appellate law at Mayer Brown and Sidley Austin, worked as legal counsel to Senators Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch, and later chaired the Utah Republican Party.
1 case and 1 statement
Michael S. Selig is the Chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, sworn in on December 22, 2025. A lawyer, he was previously a partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher and chief counsel to the Securities and Exchange Commission's crypto task force.
2 cases and 2 statements
Co-founder and CEO of Novig, a U.S. sports prediction market.
1 case and 1 statement
Connecticut attorney general
1 case and 2 statements
Bryan T. Cafferelli is the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection, appointed in March 2023. A lawyer, he previously served as legal counsel to the Connecticut Senate Republican Office and as a drug control attorney at the department. He also worked as a prosecutor in Stamford and as chief of staff and legal counsel to Lieutenant Governor Michael Fedele. He earned degrees in political science at the University of South Carolina and law at the University of Connecticut.
1 case and 2 statements
Executive Director at Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling
1 case and 1 statement
Ned Lamont is the Democratic governor of Connecticut. He founded a telecommunications business before entering statewide politics. His earlier public service included the Greenwich Board of Selectmen.
1 case and 1 statement
Kalshi spokesperson and former Special Assistant to the President of the United States
1 case and 1 statement
Kalshi head of litigation
1 case and 1 statement
Paul Grewal is an American lawyer who was Coinbase's chief legal officer from 2020 to July 2026. He previously was vice president and deputy general counsel at Facebook, a U.S. magistrate judge in the Northern District of California and a partner at Howrey. He earned his law degree at the University of Chicago and his undergraduate degree at MIT.
1 case and 1 statement
