Massachusetts Court Gives Kalshi 30 Days to Restrict Its Offerings in the State
Summary
Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Christopher K. Barry-Smith has ordered prediction market platform Kalshi to implement geofencing that prevents Massachusetts residents from opening sports-related contracts within 30 days, rejecting Kalshi’s request for a 90-day grace period. The ruling follows a January 20 decision that had already blocked Kalshi from offering sports prediction markets in the state without a licence. Existing open contracts can be sold or settled, but users may not modify positions. The court did not bar Kalshi from broader marketing or from offering non-sports contracts. Kalshi and the state must submit a proposed injunction by 4 February 2026; a decision on Kalshi’s emergency stay request will occur at that time. The company faces multiple related lawsuits nationwide, with regulators and tribes alleging unlicensed gambling and Kalshi counter-suing some local authorities.
Key Points
- Judge Barry-Smith ordered Kalshi to deploy geofencing to block Massachusetts users from opening sports contracts within 30 days.
- The court denied Kalshi’s request for a 90-day compliance window, signalling scepticism about the platform’s argument that sports contracts fall outside state gambling laws.
- Open positions are allowed to be sold or settled, but users cannot change or increase existing stakes.
- Kansas was not ordered fully shut out: Kalshi may continue wider marketing and non-sports markets remain available.
- Kalshi and Massachusetts must submit a joint proposed injunction by 4 February 2026, or present competing proposals to the court.
- The ruling is part of a broader legal battle: Kalshi faces 19 federal lawsuits across the US, including claims from tribes and state regulators alleging unlicensed gambling.
Context and Relevance
This decision is a notable moment in the legal fight over prediction markets and where they sit relative to state gambling statutes. Massachusetts’ move to force geofencing specifically for sports markets may set a template other states use when they view prediction contracts as equivalent to sports wagering. For operators, regulators and investors interested in the prediction-market sector, the case signals heightened enforcement risk and the likelihood of patchwork state-level restrictions even where federal oversight exists.
Author style
Punchy: This ruling isn’t just another legal skirmish — it could reshape how prediction-market platforms operate in the US. If you follow regulation, betting markets or platform compliance, the details here matter.
Why should I read this?
Quick and plain: if you care about prediction markets, sports-betting law or how platforms get blocked by states, this is one to skim. It shows courts are willing to force technical blocks (geofences) rather than shut sites down entirely — that’s a practical change that affects operators, users and regulators fast.