Kalshi Enjoys Super Bowl Boom as Massachusetts Ban Looms Closer

The Super Bowl weekend brought Kalshi massive success, even as a court ruling in Massachusetts threatened to shut down its sports offerings in the state. While state regulators prepare to enforce their restrictions, traders poured nearly a billion dollars into Kalshi’s Super Bowl markets. It is unclear whether the platform’s success will impact its ongoing legal conflicts.

Regulatory Setbacks Did Not Dampen Kalshi’s Success

Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Christopher Barry-Smith has denied Kalshi’s request to pause an injunction requiring the platform to cease all sports event contract sales in Massachusetts within 30 days. The judge sided with Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, agreeing that Kalshi’s offerings constituted unlicensed sports wagering under state law.

Kalshi, which is federally regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), maintains that state gaming authorities do not control its contract operations. The company describes its products as financial instruments, not bets, and insists that federal law preempts state restrictions. Despite this newest ruling, Kalshi maintained its position, signaling it would continue to fight the injunction on appeal.

While the platform suffered a regulatory setback, it saw a surge in activity during the year’s biggest betting event. Kalshi’s Super Bowl markets drew over $900 million in trading volume, according to data shared by the company. Over $500 million of that flowed into a single contract tied to the game’s winner, with interest spiking sharply as kickoff approached.

Prediction Market Users Are Showing Distinct Preferences

Kalshi’s Super Bowl betting patterns differed significantly from those of typical sportsbooks. Contracts tied to halftime show details, musical performances, and advertiser outcomes accounted for more than $400 million in volume, revealing that users prefer contracts shaped by narratives, speculation, and real-time buzz, rather than statistical bets. Accordingly, player props and in-game statistical markets saw only $66 million in trading.

The Super Bowl surge also highlighted the broader tension facing prediction markets. The market shows strong demand, yet multiple states refuse to permit prediction markets to operate without a sportsbook license. Nevada regulators have followed Massachusetts’ example and are fighting for a ban on sports event contracts, as other states closely watch how these cases will develop.

State authorities appear to be gaining momentum. In the Massachusetts case, Judge Barry-Smith ruled that the state’s interest in enforcing its gaming rules outweighed possible financial harm to the company. Despite these regulatory setbacks, it has become evident that prediction markets have found an audience that supported them en masse on football’s biggest night.