Polymarket Initiates Federal Legal Action Against Massachusetts Attorney General and Gaming Authority

Key Points

• Polymarket launched federal litigation against Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell and the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to prevent the enforcement of state gaming regulations on sports event contracts.
• The platform claims it faces “imminent and irreparable harm” if Massachusetts blocks its prediction market operations.
• Polymarket maintains that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission holds sole regulatory power over event contracts through the Commodity Exchange Act.
• This legal challenge emerged after Massachusetts pursued court proceedings against rival Kalshi and continuing regulatory conflicts regarding prediction markets in Nevada.

Polymarket’s US division filed legal proceedings in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts targeting Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell and the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. The company aims to stop state officials from applying Massachusetts gaming regulations to its sports event contracts. Neal Kumar, serving as Polymarket Chief Legal Officer, revealed the filing on Monday.

The complaint emphasises that Polymarket would experience “imminent and irreparable harm” should Massachusetts try blocking its sports event contracts using methods similar to those deployed against Kalshi. This marks Polymarket’s initial legal confrontation in Massachusetts, whilst the state already pursues separate litigation with Kalshi.

Massachusetts Enforcement Action Would Be ‘Meritless’

Documents dated February 9 show Polymarket labelling potential enforcement by Massachusetts as “meritless” and highlighting that the Commodity Exchange Act provides the Commodity Futures Trading Commission with sole oversight of derivatives on designated contract markets. The act specifically overrides state regulations attempting to control or ban such trading activities. Kumar stated that Congress assigned the CFTC, rather than individual states, the exclusive power to regulate event contracts and stressed that prediction markets function nationally, requiring federal court intervention.

The company requests both preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing Campbell and the Massachusetts Gaming Commission from implementing state gaming laws against their operations. Polymarket contends that state enforcement creates an impossible choice between maintaining federal operational rights nationwide or yielding to what they term illegal state pressure. Their filing details various potential damages such as market fragmentation, revenue losses, civil penalty risks, possible criminal charges, mandatory shutdown of Massachusetts operations, and serious impacts on their national business model.

Polymarket References Crypto.com and Kalshi Cases

The lawsuit mentioned Massachusetts’ current legal battle with Kalshi. A Massachusetts judge rejected Kalshi’s emergency request on Friday to pause a preliminary injunction that Campbell and the Massachusetts Gaming Commission had pursued. This ruling forces Kalshi to prevent Massachusetts residents from using its sports contracts for 30 days unless an appeal succeeds. Massachusetts filed state court proceedings against Kalshi in September, but Polymarket acted first by choosing the federal court.

Polymarket highlighted remarks from CFTC Chair Michael Selig in late January suggesting the agency might reconsider its role in prediction market litigation. The company observed that the CFTC later requested permission to submit an amicus brief for a Ninth Circuit appeal between the Nevada Gaming Control Board and Crypto.com. October saw Crypto.com stop providing sports contracts in Nevada following a judge’s denial of their preliminary injunction request.

Nevada Achieves Temporary Victory Against Polymarket

Recent Nevada regulatory measures against Polymarket preceded the Massachusetts lawsuit. The Nevada Gaming Control Board secured a temporary restraining order when a Nevada state court judge required the platform to halt all event contracts statewide for two weeks initially. Carson City District Court determined that Polymarket’s sports and election contracts posed risks of “immediate, irreparable” damage to Nevada, which grows daily while the platform operates without board approval. February 11 marks the scheduled hearing for preliminary injunction motions in this case.

Late 2025 witnessed Polymarket’s return to US markets through purchasing CFTC-licensed designated contract market QCX, along with its designated clearing organisation QC Clearing LLC. QCX currently functions as Polymarket US following the acquisition. September statements from Polymarket indicated the CFTC’s no-action stance on QCX delivered regulatory approval for legal sports betting across all 50 states within a compliant regulatory structure. February 4 brought additional legal challenges when Polymarket and technology platform Blockratize faced a nationwide class action lawsuit in the Southern District Court of New York. The complaint claims the operator manages an illegal online sports gambling platform.