Nevada Gaming Regulators File Contempt Petition Against KalshiEx Over Geofencing Order

State regulators have asked a Carson City judge to hold prediction market operator KalshiEx LLC in contempt after the company allegedly failed to follow through on a May 18 court directive, and the filing details specific steps that were required yet remain incomplete according to the petition submitted to the First Judicial District Court. The Nevada Gaming Control Board contends that KalshiEx has continued to allow Nevada residents access to certain event contracts tied to sports, elections, and entertainment despite clear instructions to implement geofencing measures that would block those users from participating.

Documents submitted by the board outline how the original order came about following earlier disputes over whether Kalshi's platform qualified as an unlicensed gaming operation under state law, and the current motion seeks daily fines reaching as high as $120,000 based on projected revenue from Nevada-based activity while the alleged noncompliance persists. Court records indicate that regulators monitored the platform after the May deadline and identified ongoing access for state residents, which prompted the latest filing in June 2026.

Details of the Compliance Dispute

The contempt petition centers on geofencing technology that was supposed to prevent Nevada IP addresses from reaching sports-related, election-based, or entertainment event contracts, yet investigators reported multiple instances where those restrictions appeared either absent or ineffective during checks conducted after the court-imposed deadline. KalshiEx operates a prediction market platform that offers contracts on various real-world outcomes, and state officials have maintained that certain categories fall under gaming regulations requiring proper licensing and user controls within Nevada borders.

Regulators noted in their filing that they provided KalshiEx with advance notice of the compliance expectations, and they followed up with technical verification attempts once the order took effect, but those verifications reportedly showed continued availability of restricted contracts to users inside the state. The board's motion emphasizes that the failure to geofence represents a direct violation of the judicial directive issued earlier in the year, which sets the stage for potential sanctions if the court agrees with the contempt allegations.

Requested Penalties and Next Steps

Alongside the contempt finding, the Gaming Control Board has asked the court to impose substantial daily fines calculated from estimated profits tied to Nevada user activity, with reports specifying amounts up to $120,000 per day until full compliance is demonstrated and verified. This approach to penalties reflects standard practices when operators are accused of disregarding prior judicial instructions, and the board has referenced its authority under existing gaming statutes to pursue such remedies when court orders go unheeded.

Hearings on the matter are expected in the coming weeks, giving KalshiEx an opportunity to present its position regarding implementation timelines or any technical challenges encountered while attempting to meet the geofencing requirements. Observers familiar with similar regulatory actions note that companies in this position often provide evidence of good-faith efforts or request modifications to the original order, although the current petition frames the situation as one of ongoing noncompliance rather than partial progress.

Broader Context of State Oversight

Nevada maintains strict controls over gaming activities conducted within its borders, and prediction market platforms offering contracts that resemble wagers have drawn increased scrutiny from the Gaming Control Board in recent years. The May 18 order represented one step in an ongoing effort to clarify boundaries between licensed operations and unregulated platforms, while the latest contempt filing shows regulators continuing to enforce those boundaries through judicial channels when initial directives are not followed.

Related court filings and regulatory updates can be reviewed through official channels at gaming.nv.gov, where interested parties may find additional background on enforcement actions involving prediction markets and similar platforms. The case continues to unfold as both sides prepare arguments ahead of scheduled court dates in Carson City.

Conclusion

The petition filed by the Nevada Gaming Control Board marks the latest development in its efforts to ensure KalshiEx adheres to the geofencing requirements established by the district court earlier this year, and the outcome will likely influence how similar platforms approach compliance with state-specific restrictions going forward. Daily fines remain a possibility if the judge rules in favor of the contempt motion, while the company retains the right to contest the allegations during upcoming proceedings.