Kalshi, Polymarket and Crypto.com Sue Three More States Before They Can Be Sued

Kalshi has sued Missouri, Polymarket has sued Louisiana and Crypto.com's exchange has sued Utah, all in federal court and none of them yet the target of a state lawsuit. The filings are a race for the forum, because once a state sues first in its own courts, pre-emption becomes a defence rather than a route into federal court.

• Kalshi sued Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway in the Eastern District of Missouri on 27 October, six weeks after her office gave it 30 days to stop offering sports contracts or get licensed
• Polymarket's US exchange, QCX LLC, sued Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill in the Eastern District of Louisiana on 27 October, in a case separate from Kalshi's 23 October suit in the Western District
• North American Derivatives Exchange, which runs Crypto.com's OG.com prediction market, sued Utah Attorney General Derek Brown and three of his deputies on 26 October, pointing to Utah's 20 October state court suit against Kalshi
• The Utah complaint pleads express, field and conflict pre-emption under the Commodity Exchange Act and seeks a declaration and a permanent injunction; the Missouri and Louisiana complaints were not publicly available on 28 October
• The suits carry the question into the Fifth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits, after the Third Circuit sided with Kalshi and the Sixth and Ninth sided with the states

Three Operators Go to Federal Court Before the States Do

Kalshi filed KalshiEX LLC v. Hanaway (No. 4:26-cv-01860) in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on 27 October, according to the federal docket. The same day, QCX LLC, which trades as Polymarket US, filed QCX LLC v. Murrill (No. 2:26-cv-02482) in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. On 26 October, North American Derivatives Exchange (NADEX), a CFTC-registered exchange that launched the OG.com brand in February alongside Crypto.com's announcement of its "OG" prediction market, filed North American Derivatives Exchange v. Brown (No. 2:26-cv-01056) in the District of Utah, where Judge David Barlow has been assigned. Its disclosure statement names OG Markets US, Inc. as its corporate parent.

The Missouri suit follows Hanaway's letter to Kalshi of 16 September, which told it to stop offering sports wagering in the state or obtain a Missouri Gaming Commission licence, pay the 10% tax on adjusted gross revenue and licence fees of up to $500,000, and bar under-21s. Signed for Hanaway by Solicitor General Louis J. Capozzi III, it asked Kalshi to confirm compliance within 30 days and warned that "the State of Missouri will take legal action against Kalshi" otherwise. In early October the attorney general's office said it was in "ongoing discussions" with Kalshi, Spectrum News reported. By 27 October the docket showed only the complaint, a disclosure statement and a notice of process server. Crypto.com's exchange and Novig sued Missouri on 16 October.

In Louisiana, the docket listed only Polymarket's complaint and a corporate disclosure statement, with no motion for a restraining order or injunction. Kalshi's suit, filed four days earlier in a different district, names Murrill, Governor Jeff Landry and the Louisiana Gaming Control Board, and cites the board's December 2025 advisory notice and Act 182, which from 1 August raised the maximum fine for gambling by computer to $100,000. Louisiana has not announced enforcement against either company. Polymarket's claims are not yet public; in its 16 October suit against Ohio it added a commerce clause challenge to pre-emption.

Crypto.com's Exchange Says Utah Will Come for It Next

Utah has not sued OG.com. The exchange's complaint alleges a "concrete and imminent threat" because Brown sued Kalshi in Salt Lake County six days after the district court declined, on 14 October, to stay its August ruling for the state, and because Brown said at his press conference that "other companies that are operating . . . in Utah" should read the Kalshi complaint and "follow Utah law", as reported by Utah News Dispatch. The exchange says it lists more than 50 event contracts and cannot both offer the "impartial access" that CFTC rules require and comply with gaming laws in 50 states.

Its three counts allege that Utah's gambling laws, including Article VI, Section 27 of the state constitution and the gambling and election wagering provisions of the Utah Code, are pre-empted expressly, by occupation of the field and by conflict. It seeks a declaration and a permanent injunction but has filed no motion for interim relief. These are allegations, and Utah has not responded. A notice filed in the CFTC's own suit against Utah, brought the same day, lists OG.com's case as related.

Pre-emption Is a Sword in Federal Court and Only a Shield in State Court

The reason to sue first is visible in Kentucky. On 14 October a federal magistrate judge recommended sending Kentucky's suits against Polymarket and Kalshi back to state court, holding that pre-emption is a defence and cannot support removal. A state that files first in its own courts can therefore keep the case there, and Utah did exactly that with Kalshi. An operator that sues first, invoking the Ex parte Young doctrine to challenge officials before they act, secures a federal judge. The cost is standing: Louisiana has taken no action against either company, and Kalshi's own Louisiana complaint rests on an advisory notice and officials' public remarks, which a judge may find too thin to show an imminent threat.

The Circuit Map Now Matters More Than the Merits

The Third Circuit held 2-1 in April that the Commodity Exchange Act pre-empts New Jersey's law, and New Jersey has asked the Supreme Court to review it. The Ninth Circuit ruled 3-0 for Nevada in August, and the Sixth Circuit ruled 3-0 in September that Ohio and Tennessee may enforce their laws, vacating the Tennessee injunction. The Fourth Circuit heard Kalshi's Maryland appeal but has not ruled; the parties were still filing supplemental authorities on 26 October. The new suits sit in the Fifth Circuit, which has not ruled, the Eighth, where Kalshi is appealing a September loss in Iowa, and the Tenth, where Judge Robert J. Shelby gave Utah summary judgment on 4 August. OG.com is therefore asking a district that has already rejected the argument to accept it, and its real audience is the Tenth Circuit. For operators selling one federally listed product nationwide, every additional circuit is another possible split, and a strong argument for the Supreme Court to decide.

Suing first buys the operators a federal judge, not a friendly one. Until the Supreme Court settles the question, whether a sports contract is lawful will keep depending on which circuit a customer lives in.