US court rules against Kalshi, says states can regulate prediction markets
A US appeals court has ruled that states can regulate prediction markets, rejecting a company's attempt to exempt event contracts from state gambling laws. The 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati found that Ohio and Tennessee can regulate these contracts, a decision that deepens a split among federal appeals courts on the issue.

Briefing Summary
AI-generatedA US appeals court has ruled that states can regulate prediction markets, rejecting a company's attempt to exempt event contracts from state gambling laws. The 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati found that Ohio and Tennessee can regulate these contracts, a decision that deepens a split among federal appeals courts on the issue. This divergence, with other circuits having issued conflicting rulings regarding Nevada and New Jersey, now opens the possibility of the US Supreme Court addressing the matter. Prediction markets, which allow users to bet on various events, have seen significant growth, raising regulatory and ethical questions.
Article analysis
Model · rule-basedKey claims
5 extractedPrediction markets allow users to bet on diverse events, from sports to political outcomes and international relations.
Previous rulings from the 9th Circuit (Kalshi subject to Nevada gambling laws) and 3rd Circuit (Kalshi not subject to New Jersey laws) conflict with the latest decision.
The 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruling deepens a divide among federal appeals courts on the regulation of prediction markets.
A US appeals court ruled that states can regulate prediction markets, rejecting Kalshi's bid to exempt event contracts from state gambling laws.
Experts express concerns about the proliferation of prediction markets and betting apps, particularly for young people.