Baltimore became the first U.S. city to file a consumer protection suit against Kalshi — and named the distribution platforms Coinbase, Robinhood, and Webull alongside it. Here's what this means for your account.
Coinbase, Robinhood, and Webull are named as co-defendants in this lawsuit.
Your prediction market access through these platforms has not changed. Being named in a lawsuit is not a court order restricting operations.
| Filed by | Mayor Brandon M. Scott and the City of Baltimore |
| Filed on | August 13, 2026 |
| Court | Circuit Court for Baltimore City |
| Case number | — |
| Law alleged violated | Baltimore Consumer Protection Ordinance |
| City Solicitor | Ebony M. Thompson |
| Defendants (Kalshi suit) | Kalshi Inc., KalshiEX LLC, Coinbase Financial Markets, Robinhood Markets, Robinhood Derivatives, Webull Corporation, Webull Financial |
| Polymarket suit also filed | Yes — separate filing |
Case number will be updated when confirmed from the official court docket.
Baltimore argues that Kalshi and Polymarket allow city residents to wager on game winners, point spreads, point totals, player statistics, and other propositions also offered by licensed sportsbooks — and that calling these trades “event contracts” or “prediction-market trades” does not change their legal character under Maryland law.
The city contends neither platform holds a license from the Maryland Lottery & Gaming Control Agency, which Baltimore says is required to legally offer sports wagering in the state. By operating without those licenses, the city argues, the platforms gain an unfair competitive advantage over regulated sportsbooks — avoiding licensing fees, taxes, responsible-gambling requirements, and consumer protections.
The suits further allege that Kalshi and Polymarket market their platforms in ways that create a false or misleading impression that their offerings are lawful and properly regulated under existing consumer protection rules.
The Kalshi complaint reaches beyond the exchange itself. Robinhood, Webull, and Coinbase are named because all three let users trade Kalshi sports contracts directly inside their own apps. Baltimore argues that platforms which distributed and marketed event contracts to consumers share responsibility for alleged violations — not just the underlying exchange.
These are allegations. Courts have not yet ruled on whether wrapper-platform liability is valid under Baltimore's consumer protection law.
Full allegations are drawn from the official court filing; check back as the case develops or review the filing directly at the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.
Note: A city cannot force a platform to stop operating nationwide. Injunctive relief in a city consumer protection case is limited to Baltimore City residents and transactions.
| Dimension | City consumer lawsuit | State AG enforcement |
|---|---|---|
| Geographic scope | Baltimore City residents only | Statewide; all residents in the state |
| Legal authority | City Consumer Protection Ordinance | State gambling / consumer-protection statutes |
| Possible remedies | Civil penalties, disgorgement, restitution, injunctive relief | Geofence orders, statewide shutdown orders, damages |
| Can force platform shutdown? | No — only limits access for Baltimore residents | Yes — can obtain statewide geofence / shutdown order |
| Typical timeline | Months to years for litigation or settlement | Geofence orders can be obtained within days via TRO |
A city lawsuit cannot force Kalshi to stop operating. That requires a state court order or federal action. No access change is expected from this filing alone.
“Kalshi is operating lawfully under the exclusive jurisdiction of its federal regulator.”
“City-specific action runs counter to the CFTC's established framework; prediction markets on CFTC-registered exchanges are governed by federal law.”
These are company statements in response to the lawsuit. Courts have not yet ruled on which regulatory framework governs prediction market contracts.
Baltimore's filing is part of a broader wave of municipal and state legal challenges against prediction market platforms. The central legal question — whether CFTC-licensed event contracts are federally regulated instruments immune from state and local consumer-protection law, or gambling products subject to local authority — is still being litigated at the appellate level.
A Maryland federal court had already ruled that state law can regulate prediction market platforms. The Fourth Circuit is reviewing that decision, and the outcome may affect the weight of city-level suits like Baltimore's. The city filed its suit on the same day the Fourth Circuit case was pending, adding a municipal-law layer to the existing state-law challenge.
Prior enforcement actions were all state-level (attorney general suits, gaming commission orders). Baltimore's suit is the first municipal action — and the first time distribution platforms that do not operate their own exchange have been named directly as defendants.
Prior actions
State-level only
AGs, gaming commissions
Baltimore adds
City consumer law
First municipal action
New precedent
Wrapper liability
Distributing exchanges named
Court filing details (case number, allegations) will be added as they become available from the official docket.
State-level geofence orders, AG suits, and gaming commission actions
Which states have active court orders and what the penalties are
The CFTC preemption theory behind the federal counterattack
Six simultaneous legal challenges evaluated by threat level
Cert procedure timeline, circuit split status, three outcome scenarios
Full timeline of every major ruling, ban, and regulatory update
