Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed new rules requiring digital asset operators to collect, verify and retain information tied to crypto transfers under its planned Travel Rule framework.

According to Thailand’s SEC, the draft notification would require operators to establish risk management systems for digital asset transfers and receipts, giving them enough information to identify transactions that may involve money laundering or technology-related crime.

The proposal covers transfers between customers and regulated service providers as well as transactions involving self-hosted wallets. Operators would need to collect information about customers and their counterparties, examine service providers used on the other side of a transaction and keep records supporting every transfer for at least five years.

For the first two years of the retention period, transaction information would have to remain in a format that allows supervisory authorities to retrieve or inspect it immediately.

Thailand Travel Rule would extend checks to self-hosted wallets

One of the requirements would apply when customers send digital assets to or receive them from self-hosted wallets.

In such cases, licensed operators would have to verify that the customer owns the wallet or has authority to control it. Counterparty checks would extend to digital asset operators or other service providers involved in transfers.

The SEC said the proposed controls are intended to provide enough information to trace the financial route of a digital asset transaction and allow suspicious activity to be examined, prevented or intercepted.

Similar information-sharing requirements form part of the Travel Rule framework used internationally for anti-money laundering controls. The Financial Action Task Force extended its Travel Rule standards to virtual assets and virtual asset service providers in 2019.

As crypto.news previously explained, the framework requires covered crypto service providers to collect, share and retain identifying information about senders and recipients. The standard extends an anti-money laundering control originally developed for traditional financial transfers to digital assets.

Thailand’s draft assigns separate obligations depending on where an operator sits within a transaction.

An Ordering Digital Asset Operator would have to send information about the transferor and transferee together with the transfer instruction to the Beneficiary Digital Asset Operator.

When an intermediary operator sits along the transaction route, its qualifications must be checked and other prescribed steps taken so that the route can be tracked continuously.

Operators receiving digital assets would face corresponding risk management requirements, including collecting information on the transferor and transferee when assets arrive from an ordering operator or customer.

SEC and AMLO are coordinating crypto transfer rules

The proposal follows work between the SEC and Thailand’s Anti-Money Laundering Office as authorities develop controls for suspicious financial transactions.

Thailand’s Subcommittee on Financial Data Connectivity to Enhance Monitoring of Suspicious Financial Transactions previously resolved that the SEC and AMLO should prepare guidance for digital asset businesses. AMLO has separately been preparing rules under the country’s anti-money laundering law.

The SEC said it coordinated with AMLO when setting the proposed requirements so that information would accompany digital asset transfers and could be used for transaction monitoring.

Before preparing the latest draft, the regulator held an initial consultation on the principles between March and April 2026. Most parties involved agreed with the proposed framework and submitted comments, which the SEC considered while refining the requirements.

Anti-money laundering scrutiny has been increasing across Thailand’s digital asset sector. In July, the Bank of Thailand and SEC began examining stablecoin transactions after authorities identified high-value USDT activity that may have bypassed normal financial reporting channels.

The review used data analytics to examine unusual transactions as authorities investigated potential links to money laundering, online gambling and other activity connected with Thailand’s grey economy.

Authorities have been looking beyond transactions handled directly through regulated platforms. A global INTERPOL operation reported in July resulted in 5,811 arrests across 97 countries and territories and intercepted $293 million in illicit assets.

Thai authorities involved in the operation uncovered a suspected crypto laundering network that moved proceeds from romance scams through cross-chain token swaps. One wallet linked to the investigation had processed more than $122.5 million, according to details from the operation.

The Travel Rule itself has been moving into stricter forms across several Asian markets. South Korea approved changes in August that will remove its transfer threshold and require information sharing for every transfer between registered domestic virtual asset service providers.

Taiwan has taken a similar route. Its Financial Supervisory Commission proposed mandatory information sharing for transfers between domestic crypto platforms, with the requirements scheduled to begin in October.

Thailand is tightening oversight of licensed crypto firms

Thailand’s proposed transfer controls come as the SEC develops several other rules for the domestic digital asset sector.

In July, the regulator filed a criminal complaint against Bitkub Online and two former directors over alleged false regulatory reporting connected to a 2021 cyberattack.

The attack resulted in the loss of digital assets valued at approximately 1.7 billion baht, or $50 million. The SEC alleged that reports filed between May 10 and Oct. 30, 2021, did not accurately account for the reduction in Bitkub’s digital asset holdings after attackers stole 16 cryptocurrencies.

Bitkub said it had delayed disclosure of the attack because it wanted to prevent a bank run and later replaced the stolen assets, leaving customers without losses. The SEC’s complaint concerned information submitted to regulators following the incident.

Regulatory controls have expanded while Thailand continues developing new routes for regulated crypto investment.

On Aug. 31, the SEC proposed rules that would open overseas crypto derivatives to retail investors through licensed intermediaries when the products meet specified requirements.

Eligible contracts would need features comparable with products permitted in Thailand and use regulated central counterparty clearing arrangements overseas. Other foreign crypto derivatives would remain restricted to institutional investors under the proposal.

The latest derivatives proposal follows Thailand’s decision earlier in 2026 to recognize cryptocurrencies as eligible underlying assets under its Derivatives Trading Act. The regulator and Thailand Futures Exchange have since been developing requirements for crypto-linked futures and options.

Another consultation in April sought to streamline crypto derivatives rules by allowing licensed digital asset businesses to apply for derivatives licenses without establishing separate corporate entities.

Existing requirements make firms establish a different entity for derivatives operations, creating additional operational and compliance costs.

Thailand is building rules for more regulated crypto products

Thailand has moved its spot crypto ETF plans forward as well.

In August, regulators advanced Bitcoin and Ether ETF rules to the draft stage, proposing that locally listed funds maintain average net exposure of at least 80% of their net asset value to their underlying cryptocurrency over each accounting year.

Bitcoin and Ether would initially be the only eligible cryptocurrencies. Domestic digital asset custodians would remain the primary custody option, although the SEC could permit qualified foreign custodians when it considers their use necessary.

The framework would allow locally established crypto ETFs to trade on the Stock Exchange of Thailand, giving investors exposure through securities accounts without requiring them to manage cryptocurrency wallets directly.

Thailand had already recognized cryptocurrencies as underlying assets for regulated derivatives in February, opening the way for products based on assets such as Bitcoin. The change gave regulators and the Thailand Futures Exchange a legal basis to develop crypto-linked futures and options.

For the Travel Rule proposal, the SEC said the requirements are intended to improve transaction tracing and prevent licensed businesses from being used for money laundering or terrorist financing without placing an undue burden on operators.

The regulator published the draft notification through its website and Thailand’s Law Portal and invited digital asset businesses, other relevant parties and members of the public to submit comments through the consultation channels until July 10, 2026.

Hyperscale Data has permanently shut down Bitcoin mining at its Michigan facility, saying the move is part of its transition toward hosting an artificial intelligence (AI) data center customer. The company also plans to sell the mining equipment associated with the operation.

In a statement released this week, Hyperscale said all Bitcoin miners at the site were switched off following an inspection by an unnamed California-based neocloud provider. The shutdown comes as the company prepares the campus to fulfill requirements tied to an AI data center master services agreement that it expects could be worth approximately $1.2 billion, depending on how contract options are exercised.

Key takeaways

• Hyperscale Data has ceased Bitcoin mining at its Michigan facility as part of its shift toward AI data center infrastructure.
• The company says an inspection by a California-based neocloud provider preceded the miner shutdown, and it plans to sell the mining equipment.
• The AI customer contracted for 20 megawatts (MW) under a 10-year master services agreement with two optional five-year extensions.
• Hyperscale’s estimates—about $1.2 billion or potentially more than $3 billion—depend on whether extension options and additional capacity are taken.
• Following a one-for-five reverse stock split completed earlier this month, the stock fell to a split-adjusted record low according to Yahoo Finance data.

Bitcoin mining ends in Michigan to make room for AI capacity

Hyperscale’s decision reflects a broader corporate strategy: converting its Michigan operation from energy-intensive crypto mining to AI-focused compute services. The company said it is funding the transition through sales from its Bitcoin treasury, tying ongoing asset liquidation to the capital needs of the data center buildout.

Under the master services agreement, the AI customer contracted for 20 MW of computing capacity. The contract runs for 10 years, with two optional five-year extensions. Hyperscale indicated the agreement’s maximum term could yield more than $1.2 billion, but only if the customer exercises both extension options.

Hyperscale also outlined a scalability scenario. It said there is an additional 32 MW option that, if taken, could lift potential revenue above $3 billion. The Michigan site is expected to support up to 340 MW, suggesting the company sees room for further load beyond the initial contract window.

The company cautioned that its expansion plans remain preliminary and contingent on financing, approvals, and other risks. It further noted that the $1.2 billion estimate relies on the customer taking both extension options, while the larger $3 billion projection depends on securing the extra capacity option as well.

Why the shutdown matters for investors watching crypto “treasury-to-AI” pivots

For investors, the Michigan shutdown is significant less because it changes Bitcoin’s network economics and more because it highlights a repeatable playbook: liquidating Bitcoin holdings to fund infrastructure that competes for demand in the compute market—particularly AI workloads.

Hyperscale’s own framing links mining proceeds and treasury management to the AI transition. According to the company’s prior disclosures, it has been reducing its Bitcoin holdings while funding the buildout, including using arrangements that are described as BTC-backed credit to support the Michigan campus.

That context helps explain why the miner shutdown is treated by the market as an inflection point. When mining operations end at a specific facility, it can imply a longer-term shift in how the company expects to monetize its balance sheet—moving away from mining-related activity toward contracted compute services.

Stock reacts after reverse split; Bitcoin holdings continue to shrink

The operational shift coincided with renewed pressure on Hyperscale’s equity. Yahoo Finance data shows shares closed at $0.1984 on Wednesday, down about 17%, after touching an intraday low of $0.1932. The close marked a split-adjusted record low for the NYSE American-listed stock.

The decline followed the completion of a one-for-five reverse stock split. According to a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, trading began on a split-adjusted basis on Aug. 25.

Separately, Hyperscale’s Bitcoin treasury drawdown has continued as it funds the AI expansion. Earlier coverage tied the company’s July moves to having held about 1,006 Bitcoin while selling 100 BTC and arranging a BTC-backed credit facility for the Michigan campus.

In late August, Hyperscale said it sold roughly 65 BTC for about $5.1 million during the week ending Aug. 30, stating that proceeds would provide additional capital for the Michigan development. BitcoinTreasuries.NET, which tracks public companies, lists Hyperscale as holding about 215 BTC, worth approximately $16.7 million—representing a large decline from the amount cited in July and ranking it 84th among companies tracked by the platform.

While these figures do not determine whether the AI buildout will succeed, they do offer a practical look at how the company is funding the pivot: by converting part of its Bitcoin exposure into cash or cash-equivalent liquidity.

What to watch next: contract execution and financing uncertainties

Hyperscale’s next milestones will likely hinge on whether the AI customer exercises the extension options attached to the 20 MW baseline and whether it chooses the additional 32 MW capacity option that would materially change Hyperscale’s revenue outlook. With the company explicitly warning that financing and approvals could affect the plan, the market will be watching for updates on funding progress, regulatory or site readiness steps, and the timeline for getting the AI infrastructure live.

The U.S. Department of Justice said on Sept. 1 that federal investigators had seized more than $560,000 in cryptocurrency allegedly intended for Hamas. The FBI also took control of domains and servers that authorities said supported fundraising and recruitment.

The enforcement actions were authorized through five warrants issued between March 2025 and August 2026. Three covered cryptocurrency seizures, while two concerned online infrastructure allegedly controlled by the Al Qassam Brigades, Hamas’ military wing.

Hamas is designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. government. The latest announcement describes allegations contained in warrant affidavits. It does not represent a criminal conviction against the people who controlled the addresses, accounts or servers.

Three warrants targeted Hamas crypto fundraising

The cryptocurrency seizures were authorized through warrants dated March 25, 2025, June 25, 2025 and Oct. 10, 2025. Together, the actions recovered more than $560,000, according to the DOJ.

Investigators said human sources helped identify a fundraising system that distributed rotating cryptocurrency addresses through an encrypted group chat and website. Donors were reportedly instructed to send funds to different addresses, making the collection network harder to follow.

The first publicly announced stage of the investigation recovered approximately $201,400 from cryptocurrency wallets and exchange accounts. Authorities said those assets were connected to a network that had moved more than $1.5 million since October 2024.

The initial recovery was covered by crypto.news reporting on the $201,400 Hamas-linked cryptocurrency seizure. The latest DOJ announcement shows that subsequent warrants increased the total seized amount beyond $560,000.

The affidavits do not establish that every transaction through the identified system directly funded an attack. They outline the evidence investigators presented to obtain judicial permission to seize the assets.

FBI took control of fundraising domains and servers

The FBI later expanded the operation from cryptocurrency to internet infrastructure. Warrants dated July 29, 2026 and Aug. 18, 2026 authorized the seizure of domains and servers allegedly used for fundraising and recruitment.

The targeted infrastructure included Alqassam.ps, which the DOJ described as the Al Qassam Brigades’ main website. Taking control of the domains and servers allowed investigators to interrupt access and receive information sent through the seized infrastructure.

The DOJ said the operation enabled the FBI to intercept additional cryptocurrency donations allegedly intended for Hamas. Authorities also obtained information about thousands of people who contacted the platforms to donate or attempt to donate through cryptocurrency and conventional payment methods.

That claim comes from the government’s announcement. The DOJ did not disclose how many contacts completed payments, how many were based in the U.S. or whether any donors had been charged.

The operation was led by the FBI’s Albuquerque Field Office in coordination with its Counterterrorism Division, Cyber Division and New York Field Office. Prosecutors from the District of Columbia and the Justice Department’s National Security Division are handling the case.

Public blockchains helped investigators trace payments

Cryptocurrency addresses can be changed frequently, but transfers conducted on public blockchains normally leave permanent transaction records. Investigators can connect those transfers with exchange accounts, known services and other addresses when additional evidence is available.

The DOJ said its investigation combined blockchain tracing with information from human sources. A Chainalysis review of the initial seizure said authorities followed transfers through exchanges, brokers and operational wallets before obtaining control of the targeted funds.

Rotating addresses may make attribution more difficult, but they do not remove transaction histories from a public blockchain. Funds can also become identifiable when users interact with regulated exchanges that collect customer information.

Similar enforcement actions have involved stablecoin issuers freezing tokens linked to sanctioned or suspected illicit networks. Tether helped U.S. authorities freeze $1.6 million connected to an alleged terrorism-financing network.

Those cases do not establish that cryptocurrency accounts for a large share of terrorism financing. They demonstrate that blockchain records, exchange information and issuer controls can help authorities identify and restrict certain transactions.

Seizure does not automatically complete forfeiture

A court-authorized seizure allows law enforcement to take control of specified assets during an investigation. Final forfeiture is a separate legal process that determines whether the government may retain those assets permanently.

The latest DOJ release does not identify newly charged defendants or describe a completed forfeiture judgment covering the full $560,000. It also does not provide a breakdown of the amounts recovered under each of the three cryptocurrency warrants.

No public announcement explains which cryptocurrencies made up the complete seized balance. The March 2025 action involved several wallets and exchange accounts, but the later affidavit materials are necessary to determine how the total expanded.

The investigation remains active. Information obtained from the seized domains, servers and fundraising contacts may support further inquiries, sanctions actions, forfeiture proceedings or criminal cases. The DOJ has not announced a timetable for those possible steps.

Future filings could provide more information about the digital assets, services and jurisdictions involved. Unless prosecutors bring charges or file forfeiture complaints, some evidence may remain sealed to protect investigative methods and cooperating sources.

The latest verified position is that federal courts authorized five related seizure actions. The DOJ says those actions recovered more than $560,000 and disrupted online infrastructure allegedly used by Hamas. The assertions about ownership, purpose and control remain government allegations unless tested in later proceedings.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission asked a federal court on Sept. 2 to dismiss CME Group’s lawsuit challenging the regulator’s treatment of cryptocurrency perpetual contracts as futures.

The CFTC argued that CME lacks legal standing because the exchange could list perpetual futures under the same regulatory policy it is challenging. The agency characterized part of CME’s claimed competitive disadvantage as resulting from its own decision not to offer comparable products.

CME filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 18. It seeks to overturn the CFTC’s approval of Kalshi’s Bitcoin perpetual contract and a related agency policy statement.

The dismissal request represents the regulator’s position. The court has not ruled on the motion or decided whether cryptocurrency perpetual contracts should legally be treated as futures or swaps.

CFTC says CME created its alleged disadvantage

To establish standing in federal court, a plaintiff generally must show a concrete injury linked to the defendant’s conduct. It must also demonstrate that a favorable court ruling would likely address that injury.

CME claims the CFTC’s decision gave newer exchanges an unfair competitive advantage by allowing them to offer perpetual contracts under the futures framework. The exchange says those products should instead face the rules applying to swaps.

The CFTC disputes the claimed injury. It argued that CME is also a designated contract market and can seek permission to list perpetual futures under the same process available to Kalshi.

According to the regulator, any disadvantage arising from CME’s decision not to list the contracts is therefore “self-inflicted.” The agency said a party cannot establish standing by declining to use the same regulatory opportunity available to its competitors.

The CFTC also pointed to CME’s own trading figures. It said the exchange’s Bitcoin and Ether futures volumes in June and August exceeded their May levels, when the Kalshi approval was issued.

Those figures form part of the regulator’s argument that CME has not shown a concrete competitive loss caused by the approval. CME may challenge that interpretation when it responds to the motion.

Reclassification may not resolve CME’s alleged harm

The CFTC raised a second standing argument involving redressability. Even if the court classified perpetual contracts as swaps, the regulator said competing venues could still offer economically similar products.

A ruling in CME’s favor would therefore change the regulatory category without necessarily removing the competition CME claims is harming its business.

The CFTC said CME is not challenging the agency’s general authority to approve the product. Instead, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Kalshi contract fits the legal definition of futures or swaps.

The regulator also argued that CME’s competitive interests do not fall within the “zone of interests” protected by the Commodity Exchange Act provisions cited in the lawsuit. This test asks whether the interests a plaintiff seeks to protect relate to the purposes of the statute allegedly violated.

CME has presented the dispute as an issue involving regulatory consistency and investor protection. The CFTC’s motion frames it as a competitor attempting to use litigation against products it could offer itself.

CME says perpetual contracts are swaps

Perpetual contracts give traders continuing price exposure without a predetermined expiration date. They commonly use recurring funding payments to keep contract prices aligned with the referenced asset.

Traditional futures usually have fixed expiration and settlement dates. CME argues that the lack of an expiration date places perpetuals within the swap definition established under the Dodd-Frank Act.

The CFTC disagrees. It maintains that a futures contract does not require a fixed expiration date under the Commodity Exchange Act or existing regulatory interpretations.

The dispute began after the regulator approved Kalshi’s BTCPERP contract on May 29. The Bitcoin-linked product trades through KalshiEX, a CFTC-registered designated contract market.

As previously reported, the CFTC’s decision opened a regulated U.S. venue to Bitcoin perpetual futures after the products had largely remained on offshore cryptocurrency exchanges.

CME sued the regulator several weeks later. Its complaint seeks to vacate the Kalshi approval and the broader policy statement supporting the treatment of perpetual contracts as futures.

The central dispute concerns whether perpetual contracts legally qualify as futures or swaps. Each classification carries different registration, trading and oversight requirements.

CFTC defends its review of Kalshi’s contract

The CFTC reviewed Kalshi’s application under Regulation 40.3, which allows a designated contract market to request formal approval before listing a new product.

The agency concluded that the contract complied with the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC rules. It also said perpetual designs may not be suitable for every asset and could require individual review.

CFTC Chair Michael Selig later rejected several criticisms directed at the decision. He said regulated perpetual contracts remain subject to domestic leverage, margin and customer protection requirements.

In related coverage, Selig argued that U.S. law does not require futures to carry fixed expiration dates. That interpretation now forms part of the broader legal dispute.

CME CEO Terry Duffy has criticized the approval process and warned that perpetual products could encourage excessive speculation. Kalshi has rejected that criticism and described the lawsuit as an effort to limit competition.

The companies’ statements represent opposing positions in active litigation. The court has not determined whether the CFTC followed the correct process or adopted the correct interpretation of the law.

CME response is due October 2

CME must file its opposition to the dismissal motion by Oct. 2. The CFTC has also requested an oral hearing, although the court will decide whether one is necessary.

The judge can dismiss the case on standing or other procedural grounds without resolving whether perpetual contracts are futures or swaps. Such a decision would leave the CFTC’s existing policy and Kalshi approval in place.

If the court finds that CME has standing, it could proceed to examine the substantive legal claims. Those claims include allegations that the agency misread the Commodity Exchange Act and acted arbitrarily under federal administrative law.

The case may also influence future applications from exchanges seeking to list perpetual contracts tied to cryptocurrencies, equities or commodities. Kalshi is reportedly preparing additional products, including a perpetual contract linked to WTI crude oil.

For now, Kalshi’s Bitcoin perpetual remains available under the futures framework. The CFTC’s dismissal motion begins the next stage of the case but does not settle the classification dispute.

A Michigan court has ordered Kalshi to keep sports event contracts unavailable in the state under a preliminary injunction that carries fines of $500,000 per day for violations.

The Michigan Attorney General’s Office said Wednesday that Ingham County Circuit Court Judge Rosemarie E. Aquilina signed the order on Sept. 1, extending restrictions that have applied to the prediction market platform since a temporary restraining order was issued in June.

Under the injunction, Kalshi cannot offer, list, execute or settle sports-related contracts for people located in Michigan. The restrictions cover products functionally similar to internet sports betting, including moneyline markets, parlays, over-under contracts, in-game betting and proposition bets.

Kalshi must use a third-party geolocation provider licensed by the Michigan Gaming Control Board and capable of meeting the regulator’s geofencing requirements. The court set a $500,000 daily fine for any day it finds the company failed to comply with those requirements.

The injunction will remain in place until the court enters a final order in the case.

Michigan court keeps Kalshi sports contracts blocked

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel sued Kalshi in March on behalf of the state and in collaboration with the Michigan Gaming Control Board, alleging that the company violated the Michigan Lawful Sports Betting Act by offering sports event contracts without state approval.

The complaint argues that Kalshi enables residents to engage in sports betting while presenting the transactions as event-contract trading. Michigan has maintained that the products fall within its gambling laws even though Kalshi operates as a federally regulated derivatives exchange.

Nessel initially sought an order declaring the operation a common-law nuisance along with permanent injunctive relief preventing Kalshi from offering or advertising the products in Michigan.

The legal fight moved between state and federal court after Kalshi attempted to remove the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The federal court granted Michigan’s request to remand the case, returning it to Ingham County Circuit Court.

In late June, Aquilina granted a temporary restraining order that barred Kalshi from offering or facilitating sports event contracts in Michigan. As crypto.news previously reported, the original order imposed potential fines of $120,000 per day for noncompliance and required the company to meet state geolocation rules.

The new preliminary injunction replaces the temporary order while the underlying lawsuit continues.

“Kalshi long attempted to pass itself off as a legitimate gaming operation in our state, and I am relieved that this order further protects Michigan residents from its predatory, unlicensed practices,” Nessel said.

Kalshi has faced conflicting Michigan orders

The Michigan case previously created a separate dispute between state restrictions and federal derivatives oversight.

After the state court ordered Kalshi to stop its Michigan sports operations, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission directed the exchange to continue operating its federally regulated market.

The CFTC order involving Michigan came after Kalshi had begun unwinding sports event positions held by users in the state to comply with the court restrictions.

Kalshi told the federal regulator that the Michigan order prevented it from continuing to accept trades from state residents. The company argued that following both directives placed it between conflicting state and federal requirements.

The disagreement stems from Kalshi’s position that event contracts traded on its federally registered exchange fall under the Commodity Exchange Act and the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction. Michigan contends that sports-related products can still be regulated under its gambling laws when offered to people inside the state.

Aquilina’s latest order requires Kalshi to provide copies of the injunction within three business days to futures commission merchants that make sports contracts processed through its exchange available to their customers.

The order states that Kalshi will not be held responsible for an FCM’s customers when information about their locations remains in the possession of the intermediary and outside Kalshi’s control.

State fights over Kalshi sports markets continue

Michigan is one of more than a dozen states where regulators, attorneys general or other authorities have challenged prediction markets over sports contracts.

The disputes have produced different results as courts consider whether federal derivatives law prevents states from applying their gambling rules.

On Aug. 28, Kalshi lost its Nevada appeal after the Ninth Circuit upheld the state’s ability to apply gaming laws to its sports contracts. The ruling rejected Kalshi’s attempt to prevent Nevada from requiring state gaming approval.

New Jersey has taken the opposite side of a split in the federal appeals courts to the U.S. Supreme Court. The state filed a petition seeking review after the Third Circuit found that federal law prevented New Jersey from regulating Kalshi’s sports event contracts under its gambling regime.

Elsewhere, Connecticut opened another state-level front last week.

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, Department of Consumer Protection Commissioner Bryan T. Cafferelli and Gov. Ned Lamont sued Kalshi over sports contracts on Aug. 26, seeking an injunction to stop the company from offering the products without a state sports wagering license.

Connecticut regulators had previously ordered Kalshi, Robinhood and Crypto.com to stop offering or promoting sports event contracts in December 2025. State officials raised concerns involving licensing, the state’s minimum sports betting age and consumer protections required of approved operators.

Kalshi challenged that enforcement action in federal court, maintaining that its contracts are governed by federal commodities law.

The CFTC later joined the jurisdictional fight by suing Connecticut and other states over attempts to regulate federally registered prediction markets. The regulator has argued that contracts listed on designated contract markets fall under the Commodity Exchange Act and cannot be prohibited by states simply because their outcomes involve sporting events.

State authorities have continued pursuing their own cases. Baltimore sued Kalshi and Polymarket in August over alleged unlicensed sports betting, with its Kalshi complaint naming Coinbase, Robinhood and Webull over their distribution of sports event contracts.

Kentucky filed similar lawsuits in June against Kalshi and Polymarket, while cases and enforcement actions have reached New York, Washington, Massachusetts and other jurisdictions.

In Michigan, the Sept. 1 injunction leaves the restrictions in place while Nessel’s March lawsuit proceeds toward a final ruling.