Arkansas sues Kalshi in state court over deceptive trade practices
State seeks civil penalties, restitution and unpaid taxes in 2026 suit

Key Takeaways
- Attorney General Tim Griffin filed State of Arkansas ex rel. Tim Griffin v. KalshiEX LLC, No. 32CV-26-717, in Independence County Circuit Court on 4 November 2026.
- The complaint asserts three counts under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and an unjust‑enrichment claim, seeking civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation, restitution, injunctive relief and unpaid taxes.
- Arkansas seeks to treat Kalshi as an unlicensed casino operator for tax purposes, alleging applicable tax rates of 13% up to $150 million and 20% above that figure.
- The State cites Kalshi’s own responsible‑gambling tools and a Roosevelt Institute analysis as evidence that the platform functions as gambling.
- Arkansas filed its suit in state court after Kalshi filed federal actions elsewhere, making federal preemption a potential defense rather than a jurisdictional route to federal court.
The State of Arkansas filed suit against KalshiEX LLC and Kalshi Inc. in Independence County Circuit Court on 4 November 2026, alleging the platform offered unlicensed wagering and accepted users aged 18–20; the complaint seeks an injunction, restitution, civil penalties and unpaid taxes the State claims are due. The action was brought by Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), not under the state’s gaming statutes.
What the complaint seeks
The complaint, styled State of Arkansas ex rel. Tim Griffin v. KalshiEX LLC, No. 32CV-26-717, was file‑stamped by the Independence County Circuit Court clerk on 4 November 2026. It names KalshiEX LLC and its sole owner, Kalshi Inc., described by the State as a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.
The pleading contains three counts under the ADTPA and one unjust-enrichment claim:
Count 1 alleges knowingly false representations that Kalshi’s wagers were lawful in Arkansas and that its markets were safeguarded against insider trading.
Count 2 alleges unconscionable conduct by offering unlicensed wagering, including access by users aged 18–20.
Count 3 alleges deception and concealment, including failure to disclose the risks of competing against professional players.
The unjust-enrichment claim focuses on transaction fees Kalshi collected; the State requests a jury trial.
The remedies sought include a cease-and-desist and indemnification order, damages, maximum civil penalties and “the unpaid taxes for all applicable years owed to the State of Arkansas.” The ADTPA authorizes civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation, the complaint states; no aggregate total is specified.
State’s evidence and arguments
The complaint cites Kalshi’s own tools as evidence that its product constitutes gambling: self-exclusion, deposit limits, trading pauses, an affiliation with the National Council on Problem Gambling and recent restrictions on users aged 18–20. The pleading also incorporates a reference to a Roosevelt Institute document dated July 7 that, the complaint asserts, shows roughly three times as many users lose money as win.
The text includes a direct statement from Attorney General Tim Griffin, quoted in reports by CoinDesk and The Block:
"It doesn't take a genius to understand that wagering money on whether the Razorbacks win or lose is gambling." — Tim Griffin
The complaint further argues that, for Arkansas legal purposes, “the law looks to substance, not semantics,” and labels Kalshi a "pocket-sized bookie" in its pleadings.
Tax claim and regulatory context in Arkansas
The State seeks unpaid taxes by treating Kalshi as an unlicensed casino operator that should have paid applicable levies. Arkansas legalized casino gaming, including sports wagering, via Amendment 100 to the state constitution in 2018; the amendment, amended in 2024, contemplates three casino licenses in Crittenden, Garland and Jefferson counties, according to the complaint.
Each licensee may contract with up to two online sports platforms with approval of the Arkansas Racing Commission; accounts must verify age and persons under 21 are excluded. Net casino gaming receipts are taxed at 13% up to $150 million and at 20% above that threshold, according to the complaint.
On the same day, 4 November 2026, Griffin filed a separate suit against VGW in White County Circuit Court, Deltaplex News reports. That partially redacted filing names seven VGW‑linked companies operating brands including Chumba Casino, LuckyLand Casino, LuckyLand Slots and Global Poker, and alleges VGW had approximately $66,000,000 in taxable sales in Arkansas from July 2025 to June 2026.
Procedural strategy and relation to other actions
Arkansas elected to litigate in its state forum; the state complaint confines its allegations to consumer‑protection law to keep the case in county court. Kalshi had filed suits in federal courts in Louisiana and Missouri in late October 2026; Arkansas’s state filing reverses the order in this matter and makes federal preemption a potential defense rather than an immediate path to federal court.
The pleading also notes that, a week earlier, Utah filed criminal charges against Kalshi and its founders. As of the filing date of 4 November 2026, there was no judicial resolution of Arkansas’s allegations.
Kalshi has publicly described itself as a designated contract market regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). As of the time CoinDesk and The Block reported the complaint on 5 November 2026, Kalshi had not responded to their requests for comment.
Legal risks and the State’s focus
Arkansas frames the litigation on consumer protection and tax collection: the unpaid‑tax claim is the most aggressive request in the pleading because it seeks to treat Kalshi as an unlicensed casino operator responsible for taxes the State says would apply, between 13% and 20% on the applicable bases.
Arkansas also uses Kalshi’s responsible‑gambling measures as probative evidence that the company recognizes its product is gambling. The State argues that prediction‑market platforms adopting bookmaker‑style safeguards expose themselves to ADTPA claims for offering unlicensed wagering.
Documents cited and coverage
The full complaint appears as State of Arkansas ex rel. Tim Griffin v. KalshiEX LLC, No. 32CV-26-717, filed on 4 November 2026 in Independence County Circuit Court. Additional coverage cited in the pleading includes reports from CoinDesk, The Block, Deltaplex News and a Roosevelt Institute analysis of July 7. Primary documents and press materials were retrieved and cited by the Attorney General when drafting the complaint.
Frequently Asked Questions
In which court was the Arkansas suit against Kalshi filed?
The suit was filed in Independence County Circuit Court as State of Arkansas ex rel. Tim Griffin v. KalshiEX LLC, No. 32CV-26-717, and was file‑stamped on 4 November 2026.
Under what law does Arkansas accuse Kalshi?
Arkansas brings the case primarily under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), asserting three counts under the ADTPA plus a claim for unjust enrichment.
What remedies and penalties does the State request?
The State seeks injunctive relief, restitution, damages, civil penalties up to $10,000 per ADTPA violation and unpaid taxes that it contends Kalshi owes as an unlicensed casino operator.
What tax rates does Arkansas say would apply if Kalshi were treated as an unlicensed casino operator?
According to the complaint, net casino gaming receipts are taxed at 13% up to $150 million and at 20% on amounts above that threshold.
Has Kalshi responded to the Arkansas complaint?
As of 5 November 2026, when CoinDesk and The Block reported the complaint, Kalshi had not provided a response to requests for comment cited in those reports.
Tags
About the author

Miguel Sandoval
Regulatory Affairs Correspondent
Miguel Sandoval tracks gambling legislation, licensing, and regulator enforcement — from Spain's DGOJ and the Latin American authorities to the UKGC, the MGA, and the state-by-state map in North America. The reports answer three questions precisely — what changed, where, and who it affects — with jurisdictions, dates, and penalties cited exactly as published. Operators and compliance officers read Miguel Sandoval to know which rulebook moved before their next meeting.
More from Miguel Sandoval








