Louisiana Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill secured a temporary restraining order Thursday against 31 prediction market entities, including Kalshi, Polymarket and Robinhood, the same day she sued them in state court.
Murrill announced the lawsuit Thursday, saying the prediction markets named in the suit “have violated our laws with impunity.” Hours later, Judge Jeffrey Johnson of the 21st Judicial District Court in Tangipahoa Parish signed the order, which Murrill posted Thursday evening.
It prohibits Kalshi, Robinhood, Polymarket and the other defendants from offering event contracts tied to sports, elections and awards to anyone in Louisiana.
“It’s not complicated: if you aren’t a licensed gaming operator, you aren’t legal,” Murrill wrote. “Illegal gambling is a crime and is subject to jail time and significant penalties. Judges all over the country have overwhelmingly called this activity what it is: gambling. Kalshi’s and the other operators’ attempts to make up new words to evade state gambling laws, regulators, and taxes are not fooling anyone.”
Louisiana’s action adds to mounting state pressure on the industry. Kalshi and co-founders Tarek Mansour and Luana Lopes Lara are facing 14 criminal charges in Utah, filed in October.
What the order prohibits
The order was issued ex parte, meaning Johnson granted the temporary restraining order without hearing from the defendants. He wrote that Murrill is entitled to the immediate relief she requested and that the defendants are currently violating Louisiana’s law against gambling by computer, among other state laws.
“The Petition also makes clear that Defendants’ illegal conduct is immediately and irreparably harming the State in its sovereign capacity, as well as its citizens,” the order said. “The equities and the public interest overwhelmingly warrant immediate relief.”
No bond is required because the state is defending “its sovereign interests and its citizens’ interests.” Notice also is not required because “immediate and irreparable injury are ongoing,” and the order said the defendants already “received constructive notice” of the petition through media and other outlets.
The core of the order bars the defendants from “operating, offering, listing, accepting, clearing, settling, brokering, making a market in, or otherwise facilitating or offering any ‘event contract’ (also known as a wager)” to anyone in Louisiana without a state license and permit.
The order defines an event contract as any money or value risked on an event with an uncertain outcome, including contracts tied to sports, elections and awards. It lists single-game bets, parlays, teasers, over-unders, moneylines, pools, exchange wagering, in-game and in-play bets, props and straight bets as examples, but doesn’t limit the definition to them.
The defendants also can’t accept wagers from or allow market access to anyone in Louisiana, must geofence the state and can’t tell Louisiana customers their products are lawful, licensed or authorized there.
Entities named in the suit
The order names 31 entities tied to 13 brands, including the clearing and brokerage arms of several platforms:
- Coinbase: Coinbase Global Inc. and Coinbase Financial Markets Inc.
- Crypto.com: Foris Holdings US Inc., Foris DAX Inc. and North American Derivatives Exchange Inc.
- ForecastEx: ForecastEx LLC
- Gemini: Gemini Space Station Inc., Gemini Titan LLC, Gemini Olympus LLC and Gemini Trust Company LLC
- IG Group: IG Group Holdings PLC
- Kalshi: Kalshi Inc., Kalshi Klear Inc., Kalshi Klear LLC, KalshiEX LLC and Kalshi Trading LLC
- Novig: Ludlow Exchange LLC
- OG.com: OG.com and Foris DAX FCM LLC (OG Broker)
- Polymarket: QCX LLC (Polymarket US), Blockratize Inc., QC Tech LLC, QC Clearing LLC and PM Derivatives LLC
- ProphetX: ProphetX OpCo LLC
- Robinhood: Robinhood Markets Inc. and Robinhood Derivatives LLC
- Rothera: Rothera Exchange and Clearing LLC
- Underdog: Underdog Sports Holdings Inc., Underdog Exchange DCM Inc. and UDM LLC (Underdog Predict)
What comes next
Under its terms, the temporary restraining order expires at the same hour on the 10th day after it was issued, which would fall on Nov. 22.
The court can extend the order for good cause in increments of up to 10 days, or the defendants can agree to a longer period. Without either, there would be an eight-day gap before the next scheduled court date.
That date is Nov. 30, when Johnson will hold a hearing on the state’s motion for a preliminary injunction at 9 a.m. Unlike the restraining order, a preliminary injunction would keep the ban in place while the case moves forward. It would also be the first time the defendants get to argue their side in this court.
Before then, the state must serve the defendants with the order, the petition and its motion, and file proof of service with the court.
