Is Robinhood legal in Wisconsin?

Attorney General Josh Kaul's office filed a complaint to abate a public nuisance in Dane County Circuit Court on April 23, 2026 (Case No. 2026CV001284). Three Robinhood companies appear in its caption: Robinhood Markets, Inc., the parent based in California; Robinhood Derivatives LLC, based in Illinois; and Robinhood Securities LLC, based in Florida (¶¶16-18, pp.5-6). Kalshi's and Coinbase's companies are named beside them.

The state's account of Robinhood's role is that it "intermediates at least some of its customers' sports-related event contract trades on Kalshi's exchange" (¶70, p.23). Customers place orders in their Robinhood accounts while the trades are executed on Kalshi's exchange, the complaint says, so the interface is Robinhood's but the execution is not (¶71, p.24). It alleges that customers fund those trades through accounts Robinhood controls, that Robinhood holds the money until a position is sold or settles, and that it charges a fee on each trade (¶¶73-75, pp.24-25). As examples it shows moneyline, point spread and over/under contracts on Robinhood's prediction markets page as of April 3, 2026 (¶76, pp.25-26).

From those facts the single count concludes that Robinhood, like Kalshi and Coinbase, commits commercial gambling under three parts of Wis. Stat. § 945.03(1m), and that repeated violations are "per se a public nuisance" (¶¶86-92, pp.31-33). The state asks for a declaration and a preliminary and permanent injunction, both limited to "making sports-related event contracts available for trading by customers located in Wisconsin" (pp.33-34). These are the state's allegations. No court has decided them.

One, as far as the filings we read show. On May 29, 2026 the state and Robinhood Securities filed a joint stipulation dismissing it "without prejudice" (ECF 52, p.1). It rests on two representations by Robinhood's counsel: that Robinhood Securities will bring no claim against the state over Robinhood Derivatives' sports-related contracts, and that its dismissal "would not affect Plaintiff's ability to obtain any relief from Robinhood" (pp.1-2). Robinhood had told the court ten days earlier that Robinhood Securities "is not involved in the event contracts business at issue" (ECF 41, p.3 n.1).

Robinhood Markets is a different story, and we could not read the step. It is a named defendant in Robinhood's June 10 reply (ECF 66, p.1), but the defendants' June 24 filing lists Robinhood Derivatives as the only Robinhood company (ECF 69, p.1). Robinhood's quarterly report for the period ended June 30, 2026 says Robinhood Markets was dismissed from the action on July 8, 2026, two weeks after the June 24 filing had already left it off. That is Robinhood's statement; we have not read the filing or order behind it, so we could not determine why the June 24 filing omits Robinhood Markets before that date.

Kalshi's companies removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on April 24, 2026, No. 3:26-cv-00378, and the notice records that the three Robinhood companies "consent to removal" (ECF 1, p.1). On May 19 Robinhood went further and moved to transfer the case to the Eastern District, where the CFTC's suit against Wisconsin was pending before Judge William C. Griesbach. Coinbase's companies joined that motion (ECF 41, p.3), and Kalshi's joined the June 10 reply (ECF 66, p.3).

Robinhood's reasons, in its motion:

• One question, one court. Both cases ask whether the Commodity Exchange Act preempts Wisconsin's gambling laws as applied to event contracts on CFTC-designated exchanges, and the state itself had argued for a single court (ECF 41, pp.3-4).
• The agency's forum. The CFTC asserts exclusive jurisdiction over those contracts, and Robinhood argued its choice of the Eastern District deserves deference (p.7).
• Speed. It cited federal court statistics showing 102 motions pending over six months across the Western District's two judges, against 28 across the Eastern District's six (pp.8-9).

Robinhood also previewed its answer on the merits. Wisconsin's definition of a bet excludes "[b]ona fide business transactions" valid under contract law, including contracts "for the purchase or sale at a future date of securities or other commodities," and Robinhood says event contracts, "which are federally regulated futures contracts, fall within that state law statutory carveout" (pp.4-5). That is Robinhood's reading of Wis. Stat. § 945.01(1)(a)(1); no court has adopted or rejected it in this case. It added that it would withdraw the motion if the CFTC's case were moved to the Western District instead (p.9 n.7). On July 28 Judge Griesbach declined that move, writing that a transfer "may simply delay" the CFTC's effort while the state's remand motions are pending, and pointing to "the heavy caseload of the two judges in the Western District" (decision, ECF 54, p.5).

Not in anything we read. The state moved to remand on May 14, 2026, asking under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) that the case go back to state court (ECF 27, p.1). On June 9 it moved for a preliminary injunction against making sports-related contracts available to customers located in Wisconsin, saying it "seeks a ruling on this motion only in the event the Court denies its Motion to Remand" (ECF 62, p.1). On June 24 the defendants, Robinhood Derivatives among them, asked without opposition to move their response to July 10 and the state's reply to July 24, and said no hearing had been scheduled (ECF 69, pp.2-3).

Here our read of the docket stops. The newest filing in this case we read is ECF 69, filed June 24, 2026. The newest primary record we found is from another court: a September 8, 2026 minute entry in the Eastern District notes the state's counsel reporting that "the motions for remand and for a preliminary injunction remain pending" in the Western District (ECF 72, p.1). That is counsel's report, not an order. We could not query the court docket for this check, so a ruling after September 8 could exist that we have not seen.

The United States and the CFTC sued Wisconsin in the Eastern District on April 28, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-00749. As Robinhood's motion describes it, the suit alleges that federal commodities law preempts the state's gambling laws as applied to event contracts on CFTC-regulated exchanges (ECF 41, p.5). Judge Griesbach's decision describes the state's enforcement actions as aimed at companies "including Coinbase, Kalshi, Robinhood, Polymarket, and Crypto.com" (ECF 54, p.2). Robinhood is not a party to it.

On July 28, 2026 he denied the CFTC a preliminary injunction, finding it had not shown it is likely to prevail, that it would suffer irreparable harm, or that the balance of equities favors it (ECF 54, p.28). The United States and the CFTC and Kalshi appealed to the Seventh Circuit, and on September 8 the court stayed and administratively closed the case "pending a decision on the appeals" (ECF 72). It is a preliminary ruling in a case Robinhood is not in, not a ruling in the state's case against it. Kalshi in Wisconsin follows the appeals, and Robinhood's own preemption question is before the Supreme Court in its Nevada petition, No. 26-338, tracked on Kalshi Supreme Court tracker.

No. The Ho-Chunk Nation sued Kalshi and the two Robinhood companies in the Western District in 2025, No. 3:25-cv-00698, and named Robinhood only on its racketeering claim (Dkt. 97, p.8). On May 11, 2026 Judge William M. Conley dismissed that claim and ordered that Robinhood Derivatives and Robinhood Markets "are DISMISSED as defendants" (opinion, p.29). The Nation's tribal-gaming claim continues against Kalshi, and the case was stayed on September 11 pending an interlocutory appeal (order, p.8). It concerns the Nation's land, not the state's suit.

No order we found restricts it. Robinhood's restrictions page, read October 27, 2026, names Maryland and Nevada, and its overview page, read the same day, names Maryland, Nevada and Michigan. Neither mentions Wisconsin.

The state's request looks forward only. Its complaint says Wisconsin "does not seek to void or otherwise invalidate outstanding sports-related event contracts" where a customer located in the state is a party (p.34 n.20), and it asks for no damages, penalties or restitution. Nothing we read addresses balances, deposits or withdrawals. Robinhood's position in every other state is on the Robinhood legal page.

Wisconsin's suit asks whether its gambling and nuisance statutes reach sports contracts, and a ruling on that in either court would not be a ruling on federal income tax. How a Robinhood event contracts year comes out under the three ways we most often see people file is on Robinhood event contracts taxes.