1. Louisiana Prediction Markets Hit With an Emergency Court Order
A Louisiana state judge has temporarily blocked Kalshi, Polymarket, Coinbase, Robinhood and a long list of other prediction market operators from offering event contracts to people in Louisiana unless they hold a state gaming license. Attorney General Liz Murrill announced the ex parte temporary restraining order on Thursday, November 12, 2026, after asking the court for immediate relief.
The order is one of the most sweeping actions any state has taken against Louisiana prediction markets and the wider event contract industry. It reaches beyond dedicated prediction market platforms to cover large brokerages and crypto exchanges that have added event trading to their products, and it applies to contracts on sports, elections, awards shows and other uncertain outcomes.
For now, the companies named in the order may not offer, facilitate or accept these trades from Louisiana residents without the license the state says they need. The restriction is temporary, and the state is separately asking the court for a preliminary injunction that would keep the limits in place for longer.
2. Which Companies Does the Order Name?
The defendants span nearly every major player in the American event contract market. Alongside Kalshi, Polymarket, Coinbase and Robinhood, the list includes Crypto.com, Gemini, Novig, Underdog, ForecastEx, IG Group and ProphetX, together with a number of affiliated corporate entities connected to those businesses.
The mix is notable. Kalshi and Polymarket are best known as platforms built specifically for trading on the outcome of future events. Coinbase, Robinhood, Crypto.com and Gemini, by contrast, are broader trading and investment platforms that have added event contracts to the menu of products available to their customers. Underdog is a sports gaming company, while IG Group is an international trading and brokerage firm.
By naming platforms of every kind in a single action, the state has signaled that it views the product itself, rather than any particular business model, as the problem. Whether a contract is offered through a specialist exchange, a stock trading app or a crypto exchange, the state treats it the same way under its gaming laws.
3. What Is an Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order?
An ex parte temporary restraining order is an emergency court order granted at the request of one side before the other side has had a chance to respond. In this case, the judge acted on the attorney general's filing alone, without first hearing arguments from Kalshi, Polymarket or any of the other companies.
Courts reserve this kind of relief for situations in which the requesting party shows that waiting for a full hearing would cause harm that cannot be undone later. Because the defendants have not yet been heard, such orders are short-lived by design. They are meant to hold matters in place until the court can consider both sides at a fuller hearing, typically on whether to grant a preliminary injunction.
That distinction matters for anyone trying to read the significance of the ruling. The order is not a final judgment on whether prediction markets are legal in Louisiana. It is an interim step that freezes the companies' Louisiana activity while the case proceeds, and its long-term effect depends on what the court decides once the operators have presented their side.
4. What the Order Prohibits
The scope of the restraint is broad. The companies are barred from offering or facilitating event contracts that involve Louisiana residents, and from accepting wagers from people located in the state or providing them with access to these markets, unless they first obtain a valid Louisiana gaming license.
The definition of an event contract in the order is equally wide. It describes these products as wagers of money or anything else of value placed on outcomes that are uncertain, and it explicitly covers sports, elections and awards events, as well as other forms of wagering. That language leaves little room for a platform to argue that a particular category of contract falls outside the order.
In practical terms, a company subject to the order cannot continue serving Louisiana customers through its event contract products while the restraint is in force. Platforms that operate nationwide generally rely on location checks to determine where a customer is, and an order of this kind places the burden on the operators to make sure people in Louisiana are not able to trade.
5. Why the Judge Granted Immediate Relief
In granting the attorney general's request, the judge found that the state's petition showed ongoing violations of Louisiana's gambling laws. The court also concluded that those violations were causing immediate and irreparable harm to the state and to its residents.
Those findings are the threshold a court generally needs before granting emergency relief without hearing from the other side. A finding of irreparable harm means the court accepted, at least at this early stage, that the damage alleged by the state could not be adequately repaired later through money or other ordinary remedies.
The findings are preliminary. They rest on the state's filing, and the defendants have not yet contested them in this proceeding. Even so, they give the attorney general a significant early win and frame the dispute squarely as a question of state gambling law rather than one of financial regulation.
6. Attorney General Liz Murrill's Argument
Murrill has framed the case in plain terms. In a post on X on Thursday, she said that any company wanting to offer gambling in Louisiana must hold a gaming license, and that operators without one are acting outside the law. "It's not complicated: if you aren't a licensed gaming operator, you aren't legal," she wrote.
The attorney general also argued that prediction market operators are offering gambling products under a different name. In her view, labeling a wager as an event contract is a way to sidestep the state's gambling laws, its gaming regulators and the taxes that licensed operators pay. She added that courts around the country have largely treated this kind of activity as gambling.
That argument goes to the heart of the industry's legal position. Prediction market operators typically describe their products as financial instruments, contracts that pay out depending on whether a specified event occurs, rather than as bets. Louisiana's case rejects that framing and treats the substance of the transaction, money staked on an uncertain result, as the deciding factor.
7. Why Prediction Markets Keep Clashing With State Gaming Laws
The Louisiana action highlights a recurring legal problem for prediction markets in states with strict gaming rules. Event contracts let users take a position on whether something will happen, such as which team wins a game or which candidate wins an election. To a trader, that can look like a financial product. To a state gaming regulator, it can look like a sports book or a betting operation.
Gambling in the United States is regulated largely at the state level, and states that permit it usually require operators to obtain licenses, meet consumer protection standards and pay gaming taxes. Prediction market operators that do not hold those state licenses argue their products belong in a different regulatory category. States such as Louisiana argue that they do not.
Sports contracts in particular have become a flashpoint, because they compete directly with licensed sportsbooks that pay taxes and operate under state supervision. The inclusion of election and awards contracts in Louisiana's definition shows that the state is not limiting its objection to sports. It is challenging the basic premise that event contracts can be offered to its residents without a gaming license.
8. What It Means for Traders and Platforms
For residents of Louisiana, the most immediate effect is that the named platforms are barred from letting them trade event contracts while the order is in force. Users who have relied on these services to trade on sports, politics or entertainment outcomes face an interruption, at least until the court rules on whether the restrictions should continue.
For the companies, the order adds a costly compliance obligation in one state at a time when the industry is trying to operate on a national basis. It also puts large, diversified firms such as Coinbase and Robinhood in the same legal position as specialist prediction market platforms, which raises the stakes for businesses that have treated event contracts as a growth area.
The case does not, on its own, settle the broader question of how prediction markets should be regulated. It does show that state authorities are prepared to use their gaming laws aggressively, and that a single state court can, at least temporarily, cut off access to some of the best known names in the sector.
9. What Happens Next
The restraining order is a temporary measure, and the next stage is a hearing on the state's request for a preliminary injunction. At that hearing, the companies will have the opportunity to respond to the attorney general's claims and to contest the findings the judge made on an emergency basis.
If the court grants a preliminary injunction, the restrictions on serving Louisiana residents would remain in place for the duration of the litigation. If it declines, the restraining order would lapse and the companies could argue that they are free to resume operations in the state while the broader dispute continues.
The companies now have to decide how to respond. Their choices, whether by complying, seeking licenses or contesting the state's reading of its gambling laws, will help shape both the Louisiana case and the wider debate over whether event contracts are financial products or a form of gambling.