Michigan State court enters preliminary injunction requiring Kalshi to maintain geofencing to block Michigan residents and those within Michigan's borders from having access to its sports-event contracts

This is the state-level front of the prediction-market jurisdiction fight, distinct from the federal posture the CFTC has taken toward event contracts. Preliminary injunctions of this kind are threshold rulings, not merits decisions, but they have historically been sticky: platforms enjoined at this stage tend to geofence promptly rather than risk contempt, which makes the near-term operational effect clear even as the litigation runs on. The pattern in comparable episodes is sequential: one state court order becomes a template, and enforcement or legislative efforts in other states with active sports-betting lobbies and established casino interests tend to follow, since sports-event contracts sit directly against state-licensed wagering revenue. The distinction worth drawing is between sports contracts, where states claim direct regulatory turf, and macro or political contracts, where the federal argument is cleaner; injunctions of this kind cut at the former while leaving the latter largely untouched. Follow-ons are the merits hearing, any appeal posture, and whether the platform's federal-court strategy against other state actions gains traction, since a split between state and federal venues is the established fault line here.