Polymarket’s U.S. business has sued Massachusetts‘ Attorney General and gaming regulator in federal court, alleging it would suffer “imminent and irreparable harm” if the state tried to block its sports event contracts in the way it did with Kalshi.
The filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts was announced by Polymarket Chief Legal Officer Neal Kumar on Monday.
“Congress gave the CFTC, not states, exclusive authority over event contracts,” wrote Kumar. “These are national markets with critical questions that must be resolved in federal court. Racing to state court to try to shut down Polymarket US and other prediction markets doesn’t change federal law — and states like MA and NV that have done so will miss an amazing opportunity to help build markets for tomorrow.”
Polymarket is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell and the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) from taking any steps to enforce Massachusetts gaming laws against the company.
Massachusetts enforcement action would be ‘meritless’
In the filing dated Feb. 9, Polymarket claimed that Massachusetts’ attempts to enforce state gaming regulations against Polymarket for its event contracts is “meritless,” arguing that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) grants the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) exclusive jurisdiction over derivatives traded on designated contract markets and expressly preempts state laws attempting to regulate or prohibit such trading.
Polymarket relaunched in the U.S. in late 2025, a move that was facilitated by its acquisition of CFTC-licensed designated contract market (DCM) QCX and its associated designated clearing organization (DCO) QC Clearing LLC. QCX now does business as Polymarket US.
Polymarket said in September, after that acquisition, that the CFTC’s no-action position on QCX gave it the regulatory green light to offer “legal sports betting” in all 50 states and paved the way for American users to access Polymarket within a fully regulated and compliant framework.
Among other alleged harms such as market fragmentation and loss of revenue for Polymarket, the company argued in the new court filing that such action from the state would force Polymarket US “to choose between exercising its federal right to operate nationwide or submitting to unlawful state coercion.”
Polymarket references Crypto.com and Kalshi cases
In its court filing against Massachusetts officials, Polymarket referenced another lawsuit in Massachusetts involving its competitor Kalshi.
On Friday, a Massachusetts judge denied Kalshi’s emergency motion to stay a preliminary injunction sought by Campbell and the MGC. That decision effectively means that, pending an appeal, Kalshi must block people in Massachusetts from accessing its sports contracts within 30 days.
In that case, it was Massachusetts that sued Kalshi first, doing so in state court in September. In contrast, Polymarket has made the first move.
“That injunction demonstrates the Commonwealth’s willingness to use state law to shut down federally authorized markets despite clear federal preemption,” claimed Polymarket. “Polymarket US now faces a real and imminent risk of identical enforcement, exposing it to civil penalties, potential criminal liability, forced cessation of operations within Massachusetts and severe collateral consequences to its nationwide operations.”
Polymarket’s suit also referred to CFTC Chair Michael Selig’s comments at the end of January that the agency would reassess its participation in litigation around prediction markets. The company noted that the CFTC “acted decisively in fulfilling that responsibility” by seeking leave to file an amicus brief in a Ninth Circuit appeal of the case between the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) and Crypto.com.
Crypto.com ceased offering its sports contracts in Nevada in October after a judge denied its request for a preliminary injunction.
Nevada secured temporary win vs. Polymarket
Speaking of Nevada, Polymarket’s offensive in Massachusetts also comes after a Nevada state court judge ordered the platform to stop offering any event contracts in the state for an initial period of two weeks, granting the NGCB’s request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) while the regulator’s lawsuit against the platform continues.
In that case, the Carson City District Court judge determined that Polymarket’s sports and election contracts meant there was potential for “immediate, irreparable” harm to the state, harm which “exacerbates with each day that Polymarket operates in Nevada outside the authority of the board.”
A hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for Feb. 11.
