To Top

Washington Seeks Remand in Kalshi Case Amid Widening Legal Split

The state of Washington has petitioned a judge to get a case against prediction market firm Kalshi sent back to state court
Washington seeks a remand in its case against Kalshi.
Ian St. Clair Avatar
2 mins read
Share Share
Copy link Share on X Share on Facebook Share on Reddit Share via Email

Gaming Edge’s TL;DR

  • Washington has asked a court to remand its lawsuit against Kalshi back to state court.
  • The dispute’s outcome will determine whether platforms like Kalshi face state-by-state enforcement.

The state of Washington has filed a motion to remand its lawsuit against Kalshi to state court after the prediction market operator got the case moved to federal court.

The state argues the complaint “makes no federal claims, cites no federal law, and raises no federal issues,” invoking the well-pleaded complaint rule to say removal is improper.

Washington rejects Kalshi’s reliance on the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) as irrelevant to jurisdiction, and disputes Kalshi’s attempt to invoke federal officer removal, calling Kalshi a private actor.

The state frames Kalshi’s platform as an unlawful gambling operation under Washington law and seeks injunctive relief, civil penalties, and disgorgement. Washington also points to prior remand wins – notably Nevada – and pending related cases in other states.

NJ court supports pre-emption claims

The remand push underscores a growing patchwork risk for operators and uncertainty for players. If states successfully bring these cases in state courts, platforms could face injunctions that block specific markets or statewide access (as Nevada achieved), plus fines and disgorgement demands. For bettors, that could mean markets disappearing or platforms geoblocking customers in particular states.

Operators will weigh licensing and compliance costs, potential litigation exposure, and whether to defend federal pre-emption claims that could secure broader, national access.

The Third Circuit’s recent ruling for Kalshi in the New Jersey case complicates the picture by supporting CEA pre-emption for some event contracts.

The net effect is a bifurcated marketplace where operator strategy, legal posture, and state regulators’ tolerance will determine where and how bettors can trade event contracts.

Based on reporting by Chavdar Vasilev for Gambling Insider.

About the Author
VIEW ALL POSTS
Ian St. Clair

Content Lead

Ian St. Clair is a lover of words, vocal or written. Naturally, that makes Ian a great communicator and leader. Ian is curious and driven, always looking to improve, and always welcomes a challenge. Ian is authentic, possesses high-level emotional intelligence, and knows just when to crack a joke. A University of Northern Colorado graduate, Ian is now an expert in the online gambling field in the US, where he's been for over five years. Ian also has over a decade of journalism experience covering college and professional athletics, as well as the symphony and theater. Ian's a lover of history, news, and bacon. Oh, and tacos.

VIEW ALL POSTS
Sign up to our newsletter to get GamingToday latest hands-on reviews, expert advice, and exclusive offers delivered straight to your inbox.
You are already subscribed to our newsletter. Want to update your preferences data?
Thank you for signing up! You’re all set to receive the latest reviews, expert advice, and exclusive offers straight to your inbox. Stay tuned!
Something went wrong. Please try again later