CFTC Geofencing Guidance: What Kalshi’s Court Orders Require

CFTC geofencing guidance issued November 5 gives exchanges 30 days to end domestic geographic restrictions that violate its impartial-access requirements, or explain why compliance is not feasible. Yet Kalshi’s court documents impose different limits on products, locations and existing positions, and the November 5 announcement does not lift those orders.

What the CFTC geofencing guidance says

A geofence uses location information to restrict access to a service. In its November 5 release, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission challenged domestic geographic restrictions under its impartial-access requirements. These requirements govern designated contract markets, the exchanges the CFTC approves.

The agency interprets an existing regulation, 17 CFR 38.151(b). It says access standards should rest on objective criteria. Its rationale is that regional exclusions can divide trading activity, reduce liquidity and prevent people from managing positions while traveling. Those are the agency’s arguments, rather than measured effects of the announcement.

“Geographic access restrictions are inconsistent with those purposes and the Act’s impartial access requirements.”

— CFTC Chairman Michael Selig, November 5 release

The release gives exchanges two routes. They must cease restrictions that violate the requirements within 30 days, or explain to the Division of Market Oversight why compliance is not feasible. It also says the Commission will consider each case’s facts and circumstances when weighing potential action.

The release’s passage on intermediaries, such as brokers, is worded differently. It says exchanges should ensure within the same 30 days that intermediaries are not impeding and are complying with the exchange’s access requirements, or explain why compliance is not feasible.

The interpretation states the underlying duty in firmer terms. Footnote 15 says exchanges must take reasonable steps to ensure intermediaries do not impose geographic restrictions that violate impartial access, and that exchanges are responsible for ensuring intermediaries do not impede it. The footnote sets no deadline of its own.

Neither the release nor the interpretation names Kalshi or a court order. The release also does not say that an infeasibility explanation will secure an exemption.

This adds a specific access issue to the wider CFTC dispute with states over prediction-market regulation. It does not resolve that broader jurisdictional fight.

What Kalshi’s court documents require

“State restrictions” is too broad to describe these records. A restriction may cover a person’s physical location, particular contract categories or specified tribal lands. The type of court instrument matters too: a stipulated order records agreed terms, while a preliminary injunction provides relief before a final decision.

The matrix compares the latest instruments reviewed through November 8; it shows what each document requires, not live platform access.

Two state regulators provide part of this record: the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) and Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB). The Michigan row for QCX attributes the agreement’s terms to MGCB’s announcement.

Because Nevada’s incorporated May 18 injunction was not recovered, the July order alone cannot establish every exception.

Washington’s August 12 amended injunction provides more detail. It restricts purchases in covered categories for people physically in the state, while excluding commodities, climate, economics and finance. Its express provisions for existing positions make it a useful example of why a restriction on new trades does not answer every account-access question.

Existing positions need a separate answer

Opening a trade, exiting a position, settling a contract and withdrawing money are different actions. Washington’s order expressly allows exits from existing positions. It also permits users to close or deactivate accounts and withdraw funds. That language supports a specific legal permission, not a claim that every platform feature currently works.

Michigan’s September 1 Kalshi injunction goes further than blocking new purchases. It covers offering, listing, matching, executing, clearing and settling sports wagers for people located in Michigan. The document contains no express exit-only, refund or wind-down protocol. The reviewed Nevada and tribal-land orders also do not establish equivalent exit provisions.

There is earlier federal intervention in Michigan, but its scope needs care. On July 14, the CFTC stayed a Kalshi emergency rule and directed fulfillment of specified existing Michigan trades. That action does not establish a present right to settle every Michigan position under the later court order.

Polymarket US belongs in a separate row. According to the Michigan Gaming Control Board’s October 28 announcement, QCX agreed to stop new sports contracts for Michigan customers. Residents’ remaining positions must close by the end of November 25, Eastern Time, unless they close voluntarily sooner. The state described a court-approved agreement and promised to forgo enforcement while QCX complies.

Those terms come from the regulator’s account; the full stipulation was not recovered. They concern QCX’s U.S. business, not the international Polymarket.com platform. The reviewed material does not establish additional refund or geolocation mechanics.

Why courts and the CFTC read access differently

The legal disagreement predates November 5. In its August amended injunction, the Washington court rejected Kalshi’s argument that the federal access rule required access despite state law.

“The impartial access rule does not require Kalshi to violate state law.”

— King County Superior Court, August 12 amended preliminary injunction

The Ninth Circuit also addressed the access argument in its August 28 decision. On the record then before it, the court rejected the claimed impossibility of complying with both regimes. The panel said Kalshi had not explained why withholding sports contracts in Nevada would breach the access rule.

It pointed to other regulated entities’ use of geofencing and cited the district court’s finding that the record did not show a threat of adverse CFTC action for compliance with state law and court orders.

The November interpretation could therefore supply material for later arguments about access. That is an inference from the documents, not a finding that a court has accepted the agency’s position. Neither earlier court decision responded to the November announcement.

Other appellate decisions address the wider question of federal preemption: whether federal law displaces state enforcement. The Third Circuit’s April ruling upheld preliminary protection for Kalshi in New Jersey. In September, the Sixth Circuit reached adverse preliminary-injunction outcomes for Kalshi in the Ohio and Tennessee cases. These rulings do not amount to one final nationwide answer.

What happens next

The next dates concern different proceedings. The tribal-land case requires maps and a status report. Michigan’s QCX agreement has a position-closing deadline. Meanwhile, Kalshi’s response to the U.S. Supreme Court petition in the New Jersey dispute is due December 7. The checked docket did not show a grant of review.

For background on the agency’s broader approach, see Dyutam’s earlier coverage of CFTC sports prediction-market rules.

For now, the central issue is how exchanges answer the regulator while addressing the restrictions in each case. An agency announcement alone does not establish renewed access, and the sources checked for this article did not verify a reopening announcement.

FAQs

---

Sources

• Impartial Access Requirements Interpretation announcement, November 5, 2026 — CFTC
• Approved impartial-access interpretation — CFTC
• Nevada joint stipulation and order signed July 24, 2026 — First Judicial District Court, hosted by NGCB
• Announcement describing Nevada’s Kalshi restrictions — Nevada Gaming Control Board
• Washington amended preliminary injunction, August 12, 2026 — King County Superior Court, hosted by Washington Attorney General
• Michigan Kalshi preliminary injunction, September 1, 2026 — Ingham County Circuit Court, hosted by Michigan Attorney General
• Polymarket agreement announcement, October 28, 2026 — Michigan Gaming Control Board
• Blue Lake litigation preliminary injunction, ECF 106, November 4, 2026 — U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, via RECAP
• Kalshi New Jersey appeal decision, April 6, 2026 — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Kalshi Nevada appeal decision, August 28, 2026 — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, hosted by NGCB
• Kalshi Ohio and Tennessee appeals decision, September 25, 2026 — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• New Jersey petition, docket 26-299 — Supreme Court of the United States
• Separate swap-definition proposal and comment deadline, October 19, 2026 — Federal Register
• Intervention concerning specified Michigan trades, July 14, 2026 — CFTC