Is Polymarket legal in Michigan?

The plaintiff is QCX LLC, which does business as Polymarket US and is the exchange the CFTC designated a contract market in July 2025. It sued Attorney General Dana Nessel and the chair, members and executive director of the Michigan Gaming Control Board, all in their official capacities, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan (No. 1:26-cv-00710) (complaint, ECF No. 1). It asked for a declaration that Mich. Comp. Laws § 432.201 et seq. and § 750.301 "are preempted under the CEA as applied to Plaintiff", and for injunctions barring the officials from enforcing them against it (p.25).

The complaint gives its reason in its second paragraph: on March 3, 2026, the day before, Michigan had sued KalshiEX in Ingham County, and Polymarket US said that left it facing "a real and imminent risk of enforcement" (pp.1-2). It also points to the Gaming Control Board's April 11, 2025 announcement that it was opening investigations into "unlicensed sports prediction markets operating within the state" (p.18). Those are the company's words, not findings.

Polymarket US moved for a restraining order and a preliminary injunction on March 6 (scheduling order, ECF No. 20, p.1). Four days later the court ruled on the restraining order alone, because the state had "not yet had the opportunity to be heard" (TRO order, ECF No. 17, p.1). The motion was "DENIED IN PART to the extent it seeks a temporary restraining order" (p.9). Part of the reasoning was timing: "Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that Defendants have threatened enforcement actions against them specifically in the coming days" (p.7), and the threat it cited was "currently in the realm of the hypothetical" (pp.7-8).

After full briefing, with amicus filings, the court denied the preliminary injunction on June 17, writing that Polymarket US "has not met its burden to show a likelihood of success on the merits" (PI opinion, ECF No. 41, p.2), and closing that the motion "is thus DENIED" (p.34). Polymarket US appealed. Its Sixth Circuit appeal, No. 26-1552, was filed June 25, and on July 2 it was consolidated with Robinhood's appeal from the same judge, No. 26-1542, as presenting "substantially similar issues" (Robinhood stipulation, W.D. Mich. No. 1:26-cv-00730, ECF No. 50, p.2). On August 5, granting a joint motion from both sides, the court stayed the case "pending the Sixth Circuit's resolution of Plaintiff's appeal" (stay order, ECF No. 48).

Neither order tells Polymarket, or anyone trading on it, to do anything. Each one turns down a request Polymarket US made. The state is not enjoined, and neither is Polymarket.

What the court did decide, at this early stage, is a question about the contracts. It described them as including "contracts involving sporting events and their outcomes" (ECF No. 41, p.3); the March order spoke of "individual happenings within sporting events, such as the scores of games" (ECF No. 17, p.2). The Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC "exclusive jurisdiction" over swaps traded on a contract market (7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(A)), and Polymarket US's case starts from its contracts being swaps. The June opinion concluded that "Plaintiff's sports-related products do not fall within the statutory definition of 'swap'" (ECF No. 41, p.21), and that even if they did, "its preemption arguments would still fail" (p.31).

The complaint says Polymarket US had self-certified "various financial, election-related, and sports-related event contracts" (ECF No. 1, p.15). Both opinions discuss only the sports ones. The June ruling is a preliminary finding on likelihood of success, not a final judgment, and the merits remain undecided while the case is stayed.

The court also recorded which company is in front of it. In a footnote it noted that QCX "represents that this is distinct from 'Polymarket'" (ECF No. 41, p.3 n.3). The international site is not a party.

No order in the case says anything about accounts, open positions, deposits or withdrawals, because none of them orders Polymarket to act. As of October 16, 2026, we found no lawsuit, order or cease-and-desist from any Michigan authority naming Polymarket US, QCX LLC or Blockratize.

The international site is a separate matter and is not specific to Michigan: its geoblocking documentation lists the whole United States as close-only, so people there "can close existing positions but cannot open new ones." The Polymarket legal guide tracks that alongside each state.

The appeal, QCX LLC v. Nessel, No. 26-1552, is before the Sixth Circuit and has not been decided. The district case stays paused until it is; within 14 days of the appeal's resolution the parties must file a joint status report (ECF No. 48).

The Sixth Circuit has since ruled on the same federal question in another company's cases. On September 25, 2026, in KalshiEX v. Schuler, which covers Ohio and Tennessee, a three-judge panel held "that Kalshi's sports-event contracts do not constitute swaps as defined in the CEA" (opinion, Nos. 26-3196/26-5235, p.32). It affirmed the Ohio court's denial of Kalshi's injunction and vacated the Tennessee court's grant (p.49). That opinion does not mention Polymarket and does not decide Polymarket US's appeal. On October 9 Kalshi asked the full court to rehear it (petition).

The underlying question, whether federal commodities law preempts state gambling law for sports contracts on a registered exchange, is also in petitions before the Supreme Court; Kalshi at the Supreme Court follows them. A ruling on that question is not a ruling on how event contracts are taxed: how prediction market trades are taxed covers that separately, and Polymarket taxes covers the forms.

The two companies are on opposite sides of the caption. Michigan is the plaintiff against Kalshi: Attorney General Nessel sued it in Ingham County Circuit Court on March 3, 2026, and a preliminary injunction signed September 1 bars Kalshi from offering sports contracts to anyone located in Michigan. By its own terms it remains in effect until a final order in that case. Polymarket US is the plaintiff against Michigan, in federal court, and no order binds it.

The same federal judge has handled both. Judge Maloney sent Kalshi's case back to state court on June 25 and denied Polymarket US's injunction on June 17. The details of the Kalshi order, including its geolocation terms and what it means for Robinhood and Coinbase customers, are in is Kalshi legal in Michigan.