Ohio cites Massachusetts Kalshi case as evidence to oppose prediction market operations

The Ohio Casino Control Commission has filed a Massachusetts court ruling against Kalshi as “supplemental authority” in its own lawsuit.

The commission is currently embroiled in a legal battl ewith prediction market Kalshi, opposing the company’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Ohio is blocking Kalshi’s attempt to seek injunctive relief from state law and avoid attempted restrictions to its operations.

This is just one of many state moves to block the activity of prediction markets across the US, with regulators arguing that companies like Kalshi should not be able to avoid betting regulations.

In Massachusetts, Judge Barry Smith granted an injunction against Kalshi, stating: “At the hearing both parties (referring to Kalshi and the state) discussed, but did not resolve, certain details of the Commonwealth’s requested injunction, including how to prohibit new contracts without impacting already existing contracts.”

One decision could impact future lawsuits

This decision has now been submitted on the official record in seven different lawsuits, with Ohio Casino Control Commission as the latest example.

“The Massachusetts court denied Kalshi’s motion to dismiss the state’s enforcement action against it and granted the state’s motion for preliminary injunction, prohibiting Kalshi from offering sports-related event contracts in Massachusetts without obtaining a state license,” reads the document filed by the Commission, as shared by gambling lawyer David Wallach. “In its decision, the court concluded that-even assuming Kalshi’s event contracts constitute swaps a question the court found unnecessary to reach) Kalshi failed to establish that the Commodity Exchange Act preempts Massachusetts’s sports-gambling laws.”

New: Ohio Casino Control Commission files the Massachusetts court ruling against Kalshi as "supplemental authority" in further support of Ohio's opposition to Kalshi's motion for preliminary injunction. Judge Barry-Smith's decision is now of record in 7 different PM lawsuits. pic.twitter.com/uz2VQ6Qnfb

— Daniel Wallach (@WALLACHLEGAL) January 23, 2026

While the Ohio judge doesn’t have to rule in line with the Massachusetts decision, it does add more evidence to the pile against Kalshi. The injunction helps to set a precedent in the favor of gambling regulators, increasing the likelihood of other judges putting similar injunctions or obstacles in place for the prediction market.

Featured image: Kalshi

The post Ohio cites Massachusetts Kalshi case as evidence to oppose prediction market operations appeared first on ReadWrite.