Michigan preliminary injunction orders Kalshi geofencing, with $500,000-a-day exposure

On 1 September, the Ingham County Circuit Court entered a preliminary injunction against KalshiEX. The order bars the covered Michigan-facing sports contracts and requires a third-party geolocation provider licensed by the Michigan Gaming Control Board. It remains in effect until a final order in the case.

This is stronger and longer-lived than the June temporary restraining order, but it is still a preliminary remedy. Michigan treats the products as unlicensed sports betting; Kalshi maintains that its exchange sits within federal CFTC jurisdiction. The order does not finally decide that jurisdiction question.

Michigan's June announcement said the court could impose $120,000 for each day Kalshi failed to meet the earlier geolocation requirement. The September preliminary injunction instead provides for $500,000 per day if the court finds Kalshi did not comply with its geolocation requirement.

Neither cited record says Michigan collected either amount. The larger figure therefore describes potential exposure under the order, not a settled bill, a fine already imposed or a payment made by Kalshi.

Michigan says the sports contracts were available to people aged 18, while licensed online sportsbooks use a 21-year threshold. It also points to self-exclusion, player-fund controls, taxation and other requirements imposed on licensees.

Those differences explain the state case. They do not prove that federal law leaves Michigan with authority over a designated contract market. Courts still need to resolve that legal issue.

On 14 July, the CFTC said it had stayed an emergency Kalshi rule change prompted by the Michigan temporary order. It also directed the exchange to fulfil open Michigan trades under its normal practices.

That federal action concerned the treatment of then-open trades. It does not replace the later Michigan preliminary injunction, declare every sports event contract lawful under every state statute or close the Michigan lawsuit.

Kalshi says it will challenge the Michigan ruling and argues that its operations sit within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. That response identifies the legal conflict rather than merely denying the state description.

The company position is included as a defence, not adopted as fact. Michigan has a court order and the federal regulator has its statutory claim. A useful article shows both without pretending the collision has been solved.

Prediction-market cases are moving under different statutes, products and records across the United States. An interim Michigan order may influence another court, but it does not automatically bind a judge elsewhere.

The same caution applies to the CFTC intervention. Emergency action over open trades is significant, yet a final pre-emption ruling would carry different legal weight.

A stay, appeal, compliance finding or final judgment can show whether the preliminary restrictions change or whether the court reaches the merits. A federal or appellate ruling could also address the pre-emption issue raised by Kalshi.

For now, the current record is narrower but clear: Michigan's preliminary order requires geofencing for the covered contracts, the CFTC's July direction addressed open trades, and no cited source resolves the national legal question.