TLDR
- A Nevada court issued a 14-day restraining order on March 20 blocking Kalshi from offering sports, entertainment, and election contracts in the state
- Nevada users reportedly bypassed restrictions by simply changing their account address to another state with no verification required
- Kalshi uses account registration data instead of geolocation technology, which critics say fails to meet the court order’s requirements
- Arizona filed 20 criminal misdemeanor counts against Kalshi on March 17, the first criminal charges a state has brought against the company
- An April 3 hearing will decide whether Nevada issues a permanent injunction, which could set a precedent for other states
Kalshi, the prediction market platform, is facing questions about whether it is properly following a Nevada court order meant to block users in the state from placing sports and entertainment bets.
A Nevada state court issued a temporary restraining order on March 20, requiring Kalshi to stop offering sports, entertainment, and election-related contracts to anyone in Nevada for 14 days.
The company appeared to comply within hours. But reports soon surfaced that users in the state could still access restricted markets.
How Users Are Getting Around the Restrictions
According to Gambling Insider, Nevada users were still able to bet on sports through the Kalshi app as recently as March 26. One user told the outlet they bypassed the block by changing their account address to an out-of-state location.
No additional verification was needed after the address change. The user then placed a bet on an MLB game.
Gaming lawyer Daniel Wallach said on X that if Kalshi is violating the restraining order, a contempt motion could follow.
The restraining order specifically targets activity “in Nevada,” meaning it applies based on where a user is physically located, not the address on their account.
Kalshi has said that geofencing technology, which sportsbooks use to verify a user’s real-time location, is too costly and impractical to use. Instead, the company appears to be relying on the address users enter when they register.
That approach created a gap. Nevada resident and Global Gaming Business editor Roger Gros said he was blocked from trading while visiting Arizona because his account address was still listed in Nevada. At the same time, someone physically in Nevada with an out-of-state address could trade freely.
By most readings of the court order, Kalshi should be blocking anyone physically inside the state, regardless of their listed address.
Kalshi did not respond to a request for comment from Gambling Insider.
Arizona Charges and a Growing State Pushback
There are also questions about which markets Kalshi restricted. Investigative journalist Brian Joseph, based in Las Vegas, found that sports contracts were fully blocked. But some markets tied to elections and entertainment were still available under different labels like “mentions” or “politics.”
Nevada is not the only state taking action. On March 17, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes filed 20 misdemeanor criminal counts against Kalshi. It was the first time any state has brought criminal charges against the company.
The charges claim Kalshi ran an illegal gambling business by accepting bets on college sports, player performance, and elections. Kalshi called the charges meritless.
Nevada’s case carries extra weight because the state is the center of U.S. gambling. Some observers have pointed to prediction markets as a factor in declining sportsbook revenue. Nevada’s Super Bowl handle was $133.8 million this year, the lowest in over a decade.
Federal lawmakers have also introduced legislation to ban sports-event contracts on prediction markets entirely.
The 14-day restraining order expires on April 3. A hearing is scheduled for that day on Nevada’s request for a permanent injunction.
If granted, Nevada would become the first state to permanently ban Kalshi’s sports, entertainment, and election contracts. Regulators in other states are expected to watch the outcome closely.
Nevada could also argue at the hearing that Kalshi’s use of registration data instead of geolocation fails to meet the court order’s requirement to block access “in Nevada.”
