Polymarket Sues Massachusetts Over Sports Event Contracts

• Polymarket filed a lawsuit against Massachusetts to prevent the commonwealth from taking “unlawful state overreach.”
• The prediction market company is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the state
• Massachusetts’s enforcement of state gambling laws will cause “imminent and irreparable harm,” the company notes

---

Polymarket has taken legal initiative against Massachusetts, today filing a lawsuit against the commonwealth seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the state.

The prediction market company today filed its lawsuit against Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell and several members of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Counsel for Polymarket reported that action “seeks to prevent imminent and irreparable harm arising from Massachusetts’s enforcement of state gambling laws against federally regulated derivatives exchanges,” perhaps hoping to file a lawsuit before Massachusetts sued the prediction company as they did Kalshi.

Who Has Authority Over Sports Event Contracts?

As is the case for just about every lawsuit regarding sports event contracts, the question comes down to who actually has the power to regulate sports event contracts?

Companies such as Robinhood and Kalshi believe that state regulatory bodies do not have the right to intrude on the government’s “exclusive” authority to regulate prediction market, filing lawsuits in several states to defend its practices. The companies believe the CFTC is the only regulatory body that can legally regulated sports event contracts in the country.

State gaming regulators maintain the markets need to be beholden to regulations, taxes, and license fees that sports betting and gaming operators are required to follow.

Neal Kumar, Chief Legal Officer for Polymarket, took to social media platform X today to explain the company’s decision to sue Massachusetts.

“Today, we filed a lawsuit in federal court against Massachusetts. Congress gave the CFTC, not states, exclusive authority over event contracts. These are national markets with critical questions that must be resolved in federal court…Racing to state court to try to shut down Polymarket US and other prediction markets doesn’t change federal law – and states like MA and NV that have done so will miss an amazing opportunity to help build markets for tomorrow. As always, we continue to welcome dialogue with other states while the federal courts consider these important issues. We fight for the users,” he wrote.

Today, we filed a lawsuit in federal court against Massachusetts. Congress gave the CFTC, not states, exclusive authority over event contracts.

These are national markets with critical questions that must be resolved in federal court 🧵

— Neal Kumar (@HereComesKumar) February 9, 2026

Counsel for Polymarket pointed to Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Christopher K. Barry-Smith recent decision to deny Kalshi’s motion for an emergency stay as reason to file the lawsuit. An injunction on the Kalshi’s sports event contracts in Massachusetts is now technically in place. Judge Barry-Smith gave Kalshi a 30-days to implement geofencing technology in the commonwealth to prohibit the contracts from residents throughout the course of the state’s lawsuit against the prediction market company.

This proves an “immediate and concrete” threat to Polymarket US in the commonwealth.

“That injunction demonstrates the Commonwealth’s willingness to use state law to shut down federally authorized markets despite clear federal preemption. Polymarket US now faces a real and imminent risk of identical enforcement, exposing it to civil penalties, potential criminal liability, forced cessation of operations within Massachusetts, and severe collateral consequences to its nationwide operations. The resulting harm would be irreparable.”

The Commodity Exchange Act, Polymarket counsel wrote, “grants the Commodity Futures Trading Commission exclusive jurisdictions over derivatives traded on designated contract markes and expressly preempts state laws attempting to regulate or prohibit such trading.”

Acting First

Polymarket’s lawsuit came with the company perhaps foreseeing the state taking legal action of its own against the prediction market.

Massachusetts became the first state to levy a lawsuit against Kalshi – and the prediction markets – over its sports event contracts. The commonwealth filed its lawsuit against Kalshi in September.

The lawsuit alleges Kalshi’s sports event contracts bypass key consumer protections that are required of licensed sports betting operators. Kalshi has not undergone the necessary comprehensive processes required by the MGC to ensure its operations are in alignment with state regulations. Kalshi also allows users between the ages of 18 and 21 to trade contracts on its platforms, when the legal age for sports betting in the state is 21.

According to the state’s lawsuit, Kalshi’s platform employs behavioral design mechanisms drawn from gambling psychology, with features that encourage “impulsive engagement, exploit award anticipation, and diminish users’ perception of financial risk.”