Sent Back to Frankfort: Kentucky Wins the First Round on Home Turf
The most consequential prediction-market ruling this month is about an address. On October 14, Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins signed a 14-page report recommending that Kentucky's gambling suit against Polymarket's U.S. exchange be sent back to the Franklin Circuit Court in Frankfort, where it was filed. A matching recommendation is reported in the Commonwealth's case against Kalshi. Neither is final: the parties had 14 days to object, and district judges will decide.
The stakes sit inside the complaints. Attorney General Russell Coleman filed both suits on June 17: four counts against Polymarket, and a 16-count complaint against five Kalshi entities plus Robinhood, Webull and Coinbase, seeking injunctions, civil penalties of up to $2,000 per violation and treble the value of money lost. Both sets of defendants removed the cases to federal court within two days.
They lost the forum on a ruling from September 25, when the Sixth Circuit held that Kalshi's sports contracts are not swaps, and that federal law would not preempt state gambling law even if they were. That answer binds Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee and Michigan. Policing its own exchange, Atkins reasoned, is compliance with the law, not work as a federal officer - and preemption is a defence, which cannot support removal. Removal had already failed in Michigan, Nevada, Washington and Massachusetts.
Forum is not a technicality, because state court is where the remedies live. In Washington, after remand in May, a King County judge ordered sports markets out and Kalshi geofenced the state under threat of $120,000 a day. Kentucky's treble-damages count can reach five years of losses. One federal case remains: the CFTC's own suit against Kentucky, filed June 23 as its ninth state action - but a proposed October 9 rule writing event contracts into the swap definition does not change the statute the Sixth Circuit already read.
The industry spent 2026 arguing its contracts are federal instruments. In Kentucky, that argument now has to be made to a state judge, under state law, in the state capital.
Sources & attribution
- Published
- Source 1
- iGaming Times
- Publisher
- The publisher did not list a web address.
- Source URL
- The feed did not publish this story's article address.
- Source 2
- Gambling Insider
- Publisher
- The publisher did not list a web address.
- Source URL
- The feed did not publish this story's article address.
- Source 3
- Deadspin
- Publisher
- The publisher did not list a web address.
- Source URL
- The feed did not publish this story's article address.
Full attribution under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 512: this article is an original report by Infiniti Intelligence that summarizes the reporting of the publishers named above, links to their original work, and reproduces no protected expression beyond brief factual reference and in-line attribution (“according to iGaming Times”). All rights in the underlying reporting remain with the publishers listed; nothing here implies endorsement by or affiliation with them. Rights holders may request correction, update or removal through the contact address published at infiniti.w3ai.io.