Is Polymarket legal in Rhode Island?

Two cases run together here. The first is the state's: The State of Rhode Island, by Attorney General Neronha, against KalshiEX LLC and QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US, filed in Providence County Superior Court as No. PC-2026-2753 (notice of removal, D.R.I. No. 1:26-cv-00333, ECF No. 1, p.1). Polymarket US's notice dates the complaint to May 21, 2026 (¶17, p.7). It removed the case the next day, adding that "KalshiEX LLC consents to this removal" (p.1).

The second is Kalshi's. KalshiEX LLC sued three officials in their official capacities: Mark Furcolo, director of the Division of State Lottery; Attorney General Neronha; and Christina Tobiasz, gaming and athletics administrator at the Department of Business Regulation (consent motion, No. 1:26-cv-00327, ECF No. 26, p.1).

On June 5, every party asked the court to consolidate the two, with Kalshi's case as the lead, noting that "the State of Rhode Island will not seek to remand" the state's case (ECF No. 26, p.1). Counsel for QCX signed the motion (p.3). We have not read the order ruling on it; QCX's July 28 filing carries both captions, marked "(Consolidated)" (QCX notice, ECF No. 41, p.1). The United States and the CFTC appear on the June 5 caption as proposed plaintiff-intervenors in Kalshi's case, and on the July 28 caption as plaintiff-intervenors.

Polymarket US is a defendant in the state's case, and it seeks its injunction from that position.

We have not read the state's complaint. Its contents here come from Polymarket US's notice of removal, which describes the claims as follows. The state asserts that the event contracts "constitute 'unauthorized gambling' under Rhode Island law" (¶17, p.7); that they are "sports wagering" under the state constitution; and that they are "casino gaming" and "online sports wagering", which state law restricts to the State Lottery, for which Polymarket US lacks the required "license or contract" (¶18, pp.7-8).

According to the same notice, the state asks for declarations to that effect, a permanent injunction "enjoining and restraining Polymarket US's Rhode Island operations", restitution and disgorgement (¶19, p.8). The notice calls the suit one "seeking an order shutting down Polymarket US's federally regulated operations in Rhode Island" (¶8, p.5). That is Polymarket US's framing of the case, not a finding.

One of Polymarket US's removal arguments is particular to Rhode Island. State law defines "casino gaming" by reference to "Class III gaming" under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, so, Polymarket US argues, the state's claim cannot be decided without applying federal law (¶47, p.16). It also argues federal officer removal, as in its other state cases.

No order we have found in either case addresses accounts, open positions, deposits or withdrawals, and we have found no injunction against Kalshi, Polymarket US or the state. Restitution and disgorgement appear in the state's request as Polymarket US describes it; neither has been awarded.

Polymarket's international site is a separate product with a nationwide rule of its own. 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." That rule comes from Polymarket, not from Rhode Island.

Polymarket US's motion for a preliminary injunction is pending. On July 28 it filed a notice of supplemental authority pointing the court to the District of Minnesota's July 27 preliminary injunctions, which it called "directly relevant to the issues in the pending Motions for Preliminary Injunction in this Court" (ECF No. 41, p.1). In Polymarket US's summary, the Minnesota court held the plaintiffs likely to succeed on express preemption as to swaps traded on designated contract markets (p.1). Polymarket in Minnesota covers that order.

We could not confirm from the docket whether the court has heard the motions, and we have found no ruling on them. Federal appeals from Rhode Island go to the First Circuit.

Other appeals courts have divided on the question underneath. On April 6, 2026 the Third Circuit held that "Kalshi has demonstrated a reasonable chance of success on its argument that the Commodity Exchange Act ('the Act') preempts otherwise applicable state law" in its New Jersey case (KalshiEX v. Flaherty, No. 25-1922, p.1). On August 28, in Kalshi's Nevada case, the Ninth Circuit held that Kalshi did not show a likelihood that the CEA preempts state law; the court's summary says the sports contracts "were not 'swaps' because they were sports bets" (KalshiEX v. Assad, No. 25-7516, pp.3-4). On September 25 the Sixth Circuit held that Kalshi "has not shown that its sports-event contracts satisfy the statutory definition of a 'swap'" (KalshiEX v. Schuler, p.3). Petitions on the preemption question are before the Supreme Court; Kalshi at the Supreme Court follows them.

A swap holding is a ruling about which regulator has jurisdiction, not a tax holding. 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.

In Rhode Island the two companies appear in the same case caption. Kalshi is a co-defendant with Polymarket US in the state's suit, and it consented to Polymarket US's removal of it. It is also the plaintiff in the lead case against the three state officials, where the United States and the CFTC are listed as plaintiff-intervenors on its side (ECF No. 41, p.1). The caption shows both companies' cases consolidated before the same court. There is no Rhode Island page in our Kalshi legal guide yet; Kalshi's legal status covers the states that have one.