Is Robinhood legal in Massachusetts?

Robinhood Derivatives, the company that offers Robinhood's event contracts, sued Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell and the five members of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission in federal court in Boston on September 15, 2025 (complaint). The case is Robinhood Derivatives v. Campbell, No. 1:25-cv-12578, before Judge Richard G. Stearns. Three days earlier the attorney general had sued Kalshi in Suffolk Superior Court over its sports-related contracts. Robinhood told the First Circuit that the Kalshi complaint alleged Robinhood had "partnered" with Kalshi, and that it sued because it read that as foreshadowing a future enforcement action (appellant's brief, p.2). Its complaint asks for an injunction and a declaration that using Chapter 23N, the state's sports-wagering law, to regulate Robinhood's role in event contracts traded on a CFTC-designated exchange violates the Supremacy Clause (pp.26-27).

The state's officials have not sued Robinhood. They told the First Circuit that the Commonwealth has never enforced, or threatened to enforce, the sports-wagering statute against Robinhood (appellees' brief, p.1).

Judge Stearns has dismissed the case twice. On November 13, 2025 he dismissed it without prejudice as not ripe (order), relying on the Commonwealth's stipulation that it would not sue Robinhood while its injunction request against Kalshi was pending, and noting that Robinhood then offered sports contracts only through Kalshi (p.4). He reopened the case on January 8, 2026, after Robinhood began offering sports contracts through a second exchange, ForecastEx. On March 3 Robinhood told the court that ForecastEx had stopped offering them (ECF 105, p.1). On March 13, 2026 the judge denied Robinhood's renewed request for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the case again (order of dismissal), "for the same reasons previously discussed," in the words of his minute order as the officials quote it (appellees' brief, p.12).

The commitments the dismissals rest on are in an amended stipulation the officials filed on February 6, 2026. It is their filing, not an order of the court.

• The attorney general will not file or maintain a civil or criminal enforcement action against Robinhood over its handling of Massachusetts customers' orders in sports contracts listed on Kalshi, or its offering of sports contracts on ForecastEx, until four conditions are met: the Superior Court enters an injunction in the Kalshi case; if that injunction is stayed, the stay is lifted; the Massachusetts appellate courts issue an opinion on it; and the federal court decides Robinhood's injunction motion, which a dismissal counts as (¶7 and n.2, p.3).
• If the conditions are not resolved within 18 months of the filing, the attorney general may withdraw the stipulation on 30 days' written notice after a meet-and-confer (¶8, p.4). The officials' brief puts that point at August 2027 (p.16, n.4).
• The Gaming Commission will not file or maintain an enforcement action against Robinhood unless and until Robinhood obtains a Massachusetts sports wagering license, and will not ask the attorney general to sue before the same conditions are met (¶9, p.4).
• The scope is only that conduct. The stipulation "does not restrict action concerning other conduct, entities, statutes, or regulations" (¶10, p.4).

In the filings we read, two conditions have occurred: the Superior Court entered its injunction against Kalshi on February 6, 2026 (¶2), and the federal case was dismissed on March 13, which footnote 2 counts as a decision. The other two turn on Kalshi's appeal, below. We found no notice withdrawing the stipulation.

Robinhood appealed on the day of the dismissal (appellant's brief, p.1). The appeal, No. 26-1257, asks two questions in Robinhood's words: "Whether the district court erred by dismissing this case as unripe" and "Whether Robinhood has Article III standing" (p.1). It is an appeal on ripeness, not a ruling on whether federal law preempts the state's.

Briefing is finished. Robinhood filed its opening brief on May 29, 2026, the officials filed theirs on July 24, and Robinhood filed its reply on August 13 (docket). On September 8 Robinhood's counsel wrote to the court about her availability in case it schedules argument; the letter sets no date. We found no argument date and no ruling, though CourtListener, where we read the docket, can lag the court's own system.

Robinhood argues the case is ripe: the question is purely legal, and waiting forces it to choose between abandoning a business that it says serves "more than 41,000 Massachusetts customers" and operating under the threat of an enforcement action (p.3). It calls the stipulations "promises of temporary forbearance" and says they do not cover its plan to offer sports contracts through an affiliated exchange, Rothera (pp.3-4). It asks the court to reverse and send the case back for a ruling on preemption (p.4).

The officials argue the dismissal was right because any enforcement suit "rests upon contingent future events that may not occur" (appellees' brief, p.13). They call Robinhood's Rothera arguments "even thinner and more speculative than its Kalshi-related ones" (p.2). In the alternative, they ask the court to affirm because Robinhood's claim "fails as a matter of law" (p.2), and they say that if later events raise new ripeness questions, the most Robinhood would get is a remand (p.13).

Yes, through the stipulation. Its conditions are steps in Commonwealth v. KalshiEX, the attorney general's case against Kalshi, which is covered in is Kalshi legal in Massachusetts?. The Superior Court rejected Kalshi's preemption arguments and enjoined its sports contracts; on February 17, 2026 a single justice of the Appeals Court stayed that injunction pending appeal, and the Supreme Judicial Court heard argument on May 4, 2026 (appellees' brief, p.6). As of that July 24 brief the appeal was pending. We found no Supreme Judicial Court opinion and no order lifting the stay as of October 21, 2026, though we could not read the court's own docket.

Robinhood has also described a step aimed at the state's licensed sportsbooks rather than at Robinhood: it told the district court that on November 13, 2025 the Gaming Commission published a letter saying licensees "are prohibited from offering sports-related event contracts in Massachusetts directly or via an affiliate" (ECF 105, p.3). We have not read the letter itself.

We found no order that stops Robinhood's event contracts in Massachusetts. Robinhood's help center, read on October 21, 2026, lists event contract restrictions for Maryland and Nevada residents and none for Massachusetts. No order or filing we found addresses withdrawals, deposits or open positions for Massachusetts customers.

Which exchange a sports contract comes from matters to the stipulation, because it covers only contracts listed on Kalshi and ForecastEx. Robinhood told the district court in March that ForecastEx had stopped offering sports contracts, and that it was working to offer them through other exchanges, including Rothera, by June 2026 (ECF 105, p.1). We did not confirm what Robinhood offers Massachusetts customers through Rothera today.

We found one. Smith v. Kalshi Inc., No. 1:26-cv-12413, is a private suit in federal court in Boston; the docket lists an amended complaint, filed June 19, 2026, that names Robinhood Derivatives along with Kalshi entities and Susquehanna entities (docket). We read the docket listing only, not the complaint, so we don't describe its claims or status. It is not an action by the state.

The preemption question itself is being fought elsewhere. On August 28, 2026 the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Robinhood's request for a restraining order against Nevada (No. 25-7831), and Robinhood has asked the Supreme Court to take that case (No. 26-338). Kalshi at the Supreme Court follows the petitions, and Robinhood's status in every other state is on the Robinhood legal page.

Nothing in the case addresses federal tax, and a state gambling dispute isn't a ruling on how trades are taxed. How people report a Robinhood event contracts year is on Robinhood event contracts taxes.