Three California tribal casinos have failed in their first push to halt Kalshi’s sports event markets. A federal judge in the Northern District of California refused to grant a preliminary injunction against Kalshi and Robinhood. The decision keeps Kalshi’s contracts live for now as the wider case continues and adds new weight to how courts frame prediction markets in the US.

  • The tribes — Blue Lake Rancheria, Chicken Ranch Rancheria and Picayune Rancheria — argued Kalshi’s yes/no sports contracts amounted to unlicensed Class III gaming on tribal lands. They also claimed Kalshi advertising misrepresented legality by suggesting “sports betting is legal in all 50 states on Kalshi” and referenced “kids in high school” watching basketball. The tribes said those statements violated the Lanham Act.

  • The federal judge ruled that calling Kalshi’s product “legal” is an opinion on regulatory status, not a provably false factual claim. The court highlighted that other federal decisions have treated Kalshi’s contracts as lawful under federal law. A social post referencing “kids in high school” was not deemed to imply underage access and therefore did not support a false-advertising claim.

  • On the core  Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) argument, the tribes said Kalshi was effectively offering online Class III gaming inside their jurisdictions. The court disagreed, finding their compacts only restrict what the tribes themselves may offer online. Nothing in the compacts or secretarial procedures bans third-party interstate platforms like Kalshi.

  • The judge said the correct regulatory lens is the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006), not IGRA. Because Kalshi is a CFTC-registered exchange and its contracts fall under the CEA event-contract framework, those trades are carved out from UIGEA’s “bet or wager” definition. As a result, oversight sits with the CFTC, not tribal gaming regulators.

  • The ruling has practical implications for other US prediction-market cases. The court underscored that only the CFTC can determine whether an event contract violates public-interest standards, limiting how state or tribal regulators can challenge federally listed contracts in court. This reasoning may now be cited in ongoing or future litigation involving CFTC-regulated platforms, including disputes over political, economic or sports event contracts.

Please find more news here.