In a new twist to the ongoing legal battle surrounding sports prediction markets, Robinhood has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The trading platform is seeking an injunction to prevent the Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell and the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) from enforcing state laws against its operations. This lawsuit follows a complaint filed against Robinhood’s partner, Kalshi, and highlights the growing tension between federal and state regulations over prediction markets.

The Dispute Over Sports Prediction Contracts

The lawsuit centers around Robinhood’s role in facilitating trades in sports event contracts, a product offered through its partnership with Kalshi. Robinhood argues that it is a broker facilitating access to a federally regulated platform, with Kalshi operating as the designated contract market (DCM) under the oversight of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Robinhood claims that Massachusetts’s attempt to regulate this market is a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits state laws from overriding federal law.

At the heart of this legal conflict is the classification of sports prediction contracts, which allow users to bet on the outcome of sporting events. Massachusetts regulators view these contracts as a form of sports betting and argue that they must be licensed and regulated under state law. However, Robinhood maintains that these contracts are financial instruments, governed by federal law under the CEA, and not subject to state-level sports betting regulations.

In August 2025, Robinhood partnered with Kalshi, a platform licensed by the CFTC, to offer event contracts for sports markets, including the NFL. While Kalshi handles the execution of trades, Robinhood serves as a platform for users to place and settle orders. Robinhood insists that it only facilitates access to Kalshi’s exchange and does not directly operate the market itself. The company claims that the state of Massachusetts is overstepping its jurisdiction by attempting to regulate a product that falls under federal oversight.

Massachusetts’s Legal Actions Against Kalshi and Its Impact on Robinhood

The lawsuit comes just days after Massachusetts filed a complaint against Kalshi, accusing the platform of unlawfully offering sports betting contracts in the state. Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell argued that sports wagering carries significant risks, including addiction and financial loss, and should be tightly regulated. As Covers reports, Campbell stated, “Sports wagering comes with significant risk of addiction and financial loss and must be strictly regulated to mitigate public health consequences.”

Massachusetts regulators are concerned that Kalshi’s offering of sports contracts in the state, where legal sports betting exists, is operating outside of the bounds of the law. Robinhood, which provides its customers with access to Kalshi’s sports markets, fears that it could face similar legal action if Massachusetts extends its lawsuit to include its operations. The company has stated that this potential legal threat could result in civil penalties, criminal charges, and significant reputational damage.

Robinhood’s lawsuit emphasizes that it has no choice but to take legal action to protect its business and its users. The company claims that if Massachusetts moves forward with its legal actions, it could disrupt the ability of Robinhood’s 31,000 customers in the state to trade sports prediction contracts. Robinhood argues that it cannot allow the state’s intervention to jeopardize its operations and the services it offers to its users.

In its filing, Robinhood stated, “Were it to do so, Robinhood would face an immediate threat of civil penalties and potentially criminal penalties as well, along with the attendant reputational harm that such an enforcement proceeding would cause.” The company contends that, as a CFTC-regulated entity, it is already subject to federal oversight and that Massachusetts’s actions represent an unnecessary and harmful interference with federal law.

The legal battle between Robinhood and Massachusetts is part ofa broader wave of scrutiny over prediction markets, which have faced increasing legal challenges from states seeking to regulate or shut them down. In addition to the ongoing case in Massachusetts, Kalshi is also embroiled in legal disputes in other states such as New Jersey, Nevada, and California. Robinhood’s lawsuit represents the company’s efforts to protect its business from the expanding state-level legal challenges targeting prediction markets.