Kalshi believes other prediction market operators should face the same restrictions in states that have taken legal action against the company.
Key Takeaways
- Kalshi references Polymarket as a competitor that isn’t being held to the same enforcement standards.
- Kalshi lost a court battle and is now banned from offering particular markets, including sports, in the Evergreen State.
- The prediction market operator praised Michigan for taking a more uniform approach to enforcing its gambling laws.
Attorneys working for the popular trading exchange sent a letter dated Aug. 28 to Washington State Gambling Commission executive director Tina Griffin, accusing the Evergreen State’s Attorney General of singling Kalshi out through “selective non-enforcement” of its gambling laws.
“‘Irreparable harm’ isn't ‘irreparable’ if it’s business as usual for everyone else except Kalshi,” Jovy Dedaj, head of litigation for Kalshi, wrote in a social media post. Dedaj attached letters sent to the Washington and Michigan Attorneys General, highlighting the perceived double standard.
“Irreparable harm” isn't “irreparable” if it’s business as usual for everyone else except @Kalshi. For that reason, we sent these letters to the Washington and Michigan Attorneys General with a simple message: you can't demand emergency injunctive relief against one prediction… pic.twitter.com/KEky2e9h0Y
— Jovy Dedaj (@JovyDedaj) September 2, 2026
Enjoying Covers content? Add us as a preferred source on your Google account
‘Legitimate concern'
A Superior Court ruled last month that Kalshi, which is regulated federally by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), had to stop offering event contracts for sports, elections, entertainment, culture, and mentions markets, as well as end advertising in the state of Washington, which filed a lawsuit to ban the operator.
Dedaj argued in the letter that a regulator “with a legitimate concern for consumers” wouldn’t block one operator but allow others to continue offering the same contracts. Kalshi’s legal team even references Polymarket, which has not received the same restrictions in the Evergreen State.
“Notwithstanding that there are numerous other DCMs and FCMs offering event contracts identical to the ones that Kalshi is prohibited from offering under the PI Order in Washington, the Attorney General has not taken any action against any other DCM or FCM,” the attorney wrote to Griffin.
“This is particularly surprising as it relates to the Attorney General’s non-enforcement against Polymarket, which, along with its CFTC-licensed DCM, operates an unregistered, offshore platform that accounts for the majority of its business and offers many categories of event contracts that are prohibited by the CFTC.”
Washington defends actions
A spokesperson for the attorney general’s office told the Spokesman Review that is not what the state is doing.
“Under the law, the attorney general does not have to simultaneously prosecute all entities potentially engaged in the same activity to obtain a judgment against one of them,” Mike Faulk said. “Kalshi is the largest entity of its kind.”
Kalshi was ordered by Superior Court Judge John F. McHale to implement a comprehensive geofence in Washington by Wednesday, blocking residents from accessing the prohibited contracts. That includes sports event contracts in a state that offers legal retail sports betting at tribal casinos.
Kalshi faces a daily fine of $120,000 if the geofence isn’t adequately implemented.
Praising Michigan
Kalshi’s attorney praised Michigan’s response to prediction markets in the letter to Wolverine State regulators, which have agreed to not single out one operator when it comes to enforcement. Kalshi noted that Polymarket, Robinhood, and Coinbase were denied federal court orders that would have prevented Michigan from pursuing enforcement actions against them.
Kalshi maintains that the CFTC, rather than state regulators, has authority over its event contracts.
“But we recognize that position is contested, and appreciate that Michigan, unlike states such as Nevada and Washington, is not seeking to favor some industry participants at the expense of others,” the letter reads.
