Written by :
Published on :
Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Christopher Barry-Smith provided his "preliminary views" as to the likely scope of the preliminary injunction against the prediction market Kalshi.
In September 2025, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell filed a lawsuit in state court against Kalshi, which claims that the company was essentially operating illegal sports wagering by offering sports-related event contracts without a Massachusetts sports betting license.
Kalshi, which claims it does not offer a gambling product, argued the case should be heard in federal court on the grounds that its products are regulated under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and supervised by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) — and thus federal law preempts state gambling rules. That attempt to move to a federal venue was rejected.
Wallach (pictured above) offered this assessment via his X page:
1) Given Kalshi's "nationwide business," Kalshi must use "technological controls" to ensure that sports event contracts are not offered "directly or indirectly" to persons in Massachusetts. (Goes considerably further than the residency bar agreed to by Crypto in the Nevada case). This likely means that geolocation technology must be used.
2) Implementation of these "technological controls" within 30 days, not the 90 requested by Kalshi (which has had months to prepare for this inevitability -- see CFTC's 9/30/25 Notice).
3) Notice to Massachusetts users of this ban need only be provided "in response to a user's attempt to place a bet/contract."
4) Injunction is "forward-looking" only as to future contracts -- with one key exception:
- As to existing sports event contracts, "increasing the amount of an existing bet/contract is the equivalent of placing a new bet/contract and should not be permitted." (By contrast, selling an existing position will be allowed by the court)
5) Deadline for the parties to submit a proposed preliminary injunction order is February 4, 2026.
6) Court will promptly hold another hearing if parties cannot agree on the scope of the PI.
7) Court anticipates deciding Kalshi's emergency request for a stay of the injunction pending appeal on the same timeline.
8) Looks like there will be a decision on the stay motion within the next 2-3 weeks.
- Gilbert Horowitz, Gambling911.com
