State enforcement is beginning to interrupt sports wagering sold as prediction-market contracts, even while operators contest whether gambling regulators have authority over it. Sam McQuillan reports for Legal Sports Report that companies have stopped or agreed to stop sports offerings in Michigan, Connecticut and Missouri. These are concrete restrictions on access, not a final resolution of the legal dispute.
In Michigan, Coinbase agreed to stop offering new sports-related event contracts and close remaining customer positions by October 10. The Michigan Gaming Control Board’s announcement confirms that the agreement covers contracts traded on Kalshi and other designated contract markets. Michigan already had an agreement with Robinhood and a preliminary injunction against Kalshi.
Coinbase maintains that its contracts fall under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s exclusive federal jurisdiction. A court denied its request for a preliminary injunction in August, and its appeal remains pending. The agreement preserves the parties’ legal arguments; Michigan will refrain from enforcement against Coinbase while it complies. That distinction matters: a negotiated withdrawal is not a ruling that settles whether these contracts are federally regulated financial instruments or state-regulated gambling.
Connecticut said three of the nine companies it targeted with cease-and-desist orders—Webull, Gemini and ProphetX—had left the state. Six others remained active at the time of the report. In Missouri, PrizePicks suspended new sports prediction entries while allowing existing entries to remain active and pay out. It cited updated legal requirements, although it was not among the six operators that recently received the attorney general’s cease-and-desist letters.
The customer consequences differ across those actions. Michigan’s agreement requires existing positions to be wound down; Missouri’s reported pause preserves existing entries. More broadly, the dispute concerns whether businesses can offer sports wagering without entering the state licensing framework that governs conventional sportsbooks. State officials describe their actions as consumer protection, but these withdrawals alone do not demonstrate a reduction in addiction or financial harm. They show that enforcement can constrain access while the jurisdictional fight continues—and that a federal regulatory label has not ended state scrutiny.