King County Superior Court, Washington
King County court order granting Washington's injunction against Kalshi
No. 26-2-10264-3 SEA · 14 pages
Entered
Injunction orderPreliminary injunction granted; terms set later
Cite this page
Bluebook
Washington v. Kalshi Injunction (July 20, 2026): Judge Finds Kalshi Likely Broke State Gambling Law, Prediction Market Laws (last updated Nov. 7, 2026), https://predictionmarketlaws.com/documents/wa-v-kalshi-preliminary-injunction-order.
APA
Prediction Market Laws. (2026, November 7). Washington v. Kalshi Injunction (July 20, 2026): Judge Finds Kalshi Likely Broke State Gambling Law. https://predictionmarketlaws.com/documents/wa-v-kalshi-preliminary-injunction-order
Judge John F. McHale granted Washington's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding the state likely to prove that Kalshi's event contracts are illegal gambling under Washington law and that its “legal betting” advertising is likely deceptive. He rejected Kalshi's argument that federal commodities law displaces state gambling law, ordered Kalshi to preserve its records, and left the injunction's specific terms for further briefing. The order was signed July 17 and filed July 20, 2026.
What the court decided
- Gambling Act. The state is likely to prove that Kalshi's event contracts violate Washington's laws on bookmaking, professional gambling and online gambling. Kalshi is not licensed by the Gambling Commission.
- Consumer Protection Act. Kalshi's “legal betting” advertising in Washington is likely an unfair or deceptive practice affecting the public interest.
- Recovery of gambling losses. The state is likely to succeed on its claim under Washington's law allowing recovery of money lost at gambling.
- No preemption. The Commodity Exchange Act's exclusive-jurisdiction clause consolidated federal futures regulation rather than shutting out the states, its savings clauses preserve state authority, and obeying Washington law would not stop Kalshi from meeting federal requirements.
- Federal rules don't override. The CFTC's impartial-access rule is a nondiscrimination rule, and the Act's reference to activity unlawful under state law means states decide what is unlawful within their borders.
- Harm. The court relied on evidence of problem gambling and its effects on families, noted that Kalshi ignored a 2025 Gambling Commission notice, and required no bond from the state.
“The State of Washington's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED.”
Why it matters
The court set the injunction's terms on Aug. 12, 2026, requiring Kalshi to stop offering sports, election, political, entertainment and other listed contracts in Washington. Kalshi's appeal of the federal remand order is pending at the Ninth Circuit.
Where it fits in the case
Washington v. Kalshi (King County)King County Superior Court, Washington, 26-2-10264-3 SEA
- Judge John C. Coughenour grants remand, effective after 14 days.
- Kalshi appeals the remand order.
- Ninth Circuit denies a stay pending appeal.
- Judge John McHale grants the State's preliminary-injunction motion, finding the CEA does not preempt Washington gambling law; specific terms deferred. This order
- Court enters the amended injunction setting its terms: Kalshi must stop offering sports, election, political, entertainment and other listed contracts in Washington, geofence by Aug. 19, 2026 and deploy GeoComply by Sept. 2, 2026 (penalty of $120,000 per day absent a diligence showing).
- Kalshi moves for reconsideration of the amended injunction or, alternatively, of the denial of a stay.
Read and cite it
Cite the order
State v. KalshiEx, LLC, No. 26-2-10264-3 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct. King Cnty. July 20, 2026) (order granting preliminary injunction).
Cite this summary
Prediction Market Laws, King County court order granting Washington's injunction against Kalshi (read Nov. 7, 2026), https://predictionmarketlaws.com/documents/wa-v-kalshi-preliminary-injunction-order.