Is Polymarket legal in Maryland?

A city, not the state. The plaintiff is the City of Baltimore, acting through City Solicitor Ebony Thompson, and it sues QCX LLC, Blockratize Inc. and QC Tech LLC, which the complaint calls "collectively, 'Polymarket'" (complaint, p.1). The circuit court stamp shows it e-filed on August 13, 2026 as No. C-24-CV-26-005535, with a jury trial demanded (p.1). QCX does business as Polymarket US, the CFTC-registered exchange; Blockratize is its parent; the complaint alleges that QC Tech, of Boca Raton, operated the website and apps (¶18, p.5).

The claims arise under Baltimore City Code Article 2, not under a state gaming statute. There are two counts. The first, for deceptive practices, alleges that through the site, the app, advertising and social media the defendants conveyed "the false, deceptive, and misleading impression that the sports-event contracts available through the Polymarket platform may lawfully be purchased and traded in Maryland" (¶95, p.24). It also alleges the defendants failed to disclose material risks of trading (¶97, p.24). The second, for unfair and abusive practices, rests on "the unauthorized offering and facilitation of sports wagering" in the city (¶107, p.25).

Behind both counts is the city's reading of Maryland gaming law. The complaint says sports wagering may be offered in Maryland only by holders of a Commission license (¶25, p.7), and that none of the defendants appears on the state's list of licensees (¶39, p.9). It also says the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Commission "has concluded" that contracts tied to sporting outcomes are "indistinguishable from the act of placing a sports wager" (¶64, p.17); the complaint does not identify the document.

These are the city's allegations. No court has ruled on them.

The demand for relief has five parts (p.26): the maximum statutory penalties for each violation of the ordinance; an injunction "mandating that Defendants cease operating their unauthorized sports wagering platforms in the City of Baltimore and prohibiting them from accepting transactions from Baltimore residents"; disgorgement; restitution to Baltimore consumers; and other relief. The complaint puts the penalties at "up to $1,000" for each violation and for each day it was committed (¶¶101, 113, pp.24, 26).

The geographic reach of the request is the city, not the state. Nothing in the demand has been granted.

No order we have found in the case addresses accounts, open positions, deposits or withdrawals. The requests for restitution and for an end to accepting Baltimore residents' transactions are part of the city's demand, and a demand is not an order.

Polymarket's international site follows a nationwide rule of its own, set by Polymarket rather than by Baltimore. Its geographic restrictions page lists the whole United States as close-only: "Users can close existing positions but cannot open new ones, on both the frontend and the API."

QCX LLC removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on August 17, 2026, stating that "All named Defendants consent to this removal" (notice of removal, ECF No. 1, p.1). Its first ground is diversity of citizenship (¶19, p.7). The notice argues the city is a citizen of Maryland because it "is suing in its own name and on its own behalf to enforce and recover under its own municipal ordinance, not on behalf of the State or as an arm of the State" (¶21, pp.7-8), that all three defendants are citizens of Delaware and New York (¶¶22-25, p.8), and that the city's own case information report estimated its claim at "over $100,000" (¶¶6, 26, pp.3, 9). The notice also asserts federal officer removal (¶31, p.10) and federal-question jurisdiction (p.22), the grounds Polymarket US has used in its state cases.

The city has moved to remand (ECF No. 22). On September 24, Judge Richard D. Bennett approved the parties' stipulation moving the defendants' opposition from September 30 to October 21, 2026, and the city's reply from October 14 to November 25, 2026 (order, ECF No. 25). No ruling date is set. Appeals from the District of Maryland go to the Fourth Circuit.

The dispute is about a city ordinance and state gaming licensing, and nothing in it is a tax ruling. There is no IRS guidance on event contracts; how prediction market trades are taxed covers the routes people file under, and Polymarket taxes covers the forms.

Kalshi's Maryland case involves the state. Kalshi went to federal court asking it to stop Maryland's gaming regulators from enforcing the state's gaming laws against it, and the court's opinion records that on April 7, 2025 the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Commission sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter (opinion, KalshiEX LLC v. Martin, No. 25-cv-1283, p.6). On August 1, 2025, Judge Adam B. Abelson denied Kalshi a preliminary injunction, holding that it "has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits" of its preemption claim (pp.1, 30). Kalshi appealed to the Fourth Circuit, No. 25-1892 (docket).

There is no Maryland page in our Kalshi legal guide yet; Kalshi's legal status covers the states that have one.