Massachusetts Judge Christopher Barry-Smith Slams Brakes on Kalshi’s Sports Betting Expansion

A Massachusetts judge just threw a flag on the play.

Judge Christopher Barry-Smith's injunction against Kalshi's sports betting markets hits like a blindside block, freezing the platform's attempt to bring event contracts to the Bay State. It's a regulatory sack for the prediction market operator, which had been lining up for a big gain in a lucrative new territory.

The Regulatory Blitz

This isn't a simple penalty—it's a full-stop ruling. The court's move signals that blending financialized prediction markets with traditional sports wagering runs into a brick wall of existing gambling statutes. Kalshi's model, which frames bets as 'event contracts,' got flagged for illegal motion before the snap.

Why This Play Matters

For fintech watchers, it's a classic case of innovation sprinting ahead of the rulebook. Companies see a seam in the market and try to hit it, only to find regulators waiting in the gap. The injunction protects the state's existing gaming framework, for better or worse—often the first instinct of any oversight body is to protect its turf and the associated revenue streams.

One cynical finance take? It's the oldest play in the book: new entrants get hailed as 'disruptors' until they threaten the established house edge, then suddenly they're 'unregulated' and 'risky.' The house always protects its vig.

Barry-Smith's ruling is a clear message: in Massachusetts, the rules of the game are still written by the old guard. For now, the innovative drive is stopped cold at the line of scrimmage.

Judge Barry-Smith says ruling serves public interest

According to the Massachusetts judge, the preliminary injunction order serves the promote public interest. Barry-Smith added that seeking enforcement action against non-compliant entities also serves the public interest by ensuring equal oversight and fair competition among all sports betting operations in the state.

“I agree that the injunctive relief ordered will be forward-looking only, which will minimize disruption but require Kalshi to begin complying with Massachusetts law.”

–Christopher Barry-Smith, judge at Suffolk County Superior Court

Meanwhile, the judge emphasized that Kalshi’s argument against the allegations is not compelling. He noted that the prediction market platform knowingly continued to offer sports betting in Massachusetts even after the CFTC warned it to be cautious, given ongoing state enforcement efforts requiring sports wagering entities to be licensed. 

According to Judge Barry-Smith, Kalshi well understood that its business model is in direct conflict with state enforcement regimes. Therefore, any hardship Kashi faces in removing its non-compliant offerings in Massachusetts is of its own making because it chose to take that risk head-on.

To support his ruling, Barry-Smith cited Kalshi’s recent loss in a similar case last November, when a federal Judge in Nevada found that the prediction market platform was subject to that state’s gaming laws. He also noted that Kalshi has an overly broad view of federal law, emphasizing that Congress never intended to displace traditional state powers to regulate gambling. Barry-Smith believes that these state gambling regulatory powers can coexist with the CFTC’s regulatory authority.

Kalshi claims state gambling laws do not apply

In its defence, Kashi argues that state gaming laws, such as those in Massachusetts, do not apply to its sports event contracts. The prediction market platform argues that the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over its operations nationwide, given the regulator’s authority over exchange-traded swaps.

However, AG Campbell previously claimed that Kalshi’s prediction markets, which are structured as binary options, operate the same way as licensed sports betting operators. She used FanDuel as an example, saying that the prediction market is in the business of accepting bets on amateur and professional sporting events under the guise of offering contracts for sporting events. Campbell further argued that Kalshi’s sporting event contracts constitute sports betting under Massachusetts law and applicable regulations.

Moreover, a portion of the Massachusetts lawsuit points to Kashi’s actions, which the AG’s office alleges are designed to hook potential bettors. According to Barry-Smith, the prediction market employs behavioral design mechanisms borrowed from gambling psychology to encourage impulsive gambling. Kalshi’s strategic design also exploits award anticipation and diminishes users’ perception of financial risk.

Court documents further pointed to the prediction market’s website design, which presents possible payouts in bright green font that signals correctness and safety. Presenting odds in black and potential wins in green subtly encourages high-risk betting behavior by emphasizing rewards while obscuring risk.

However, a Kalshi spokesperson argued that the platform offers users a fair, transparent, federally regulated, and nationwide marketplace. The spokesperson pointed out that Massachusetts is trying to block the prediction market’s innovation by relying on outdated ideas and laws. 

The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.