Meta description: Polymarket’s Tennessee football promo revives scrutiny of a January state order as Kalshi appeals reach multiple circuits.
Tags: Polymarket, Kalshi, Tennessee Sports Wagering Council, CFTC, Sixth Circuit, Connecticut DCP, Sports Event Contracts
Market platform: Polymarket
Category: Regulation
Polymarket affiliate promotions tied to Tennessee football have revived scrutiny of a January enforcement order from the Tennessee Sports Wagering Council. Rocky Top Insider promoted the Polymarket code “ROCKY” around Tennessee’s Sept. 12, 2026 game at Georgia Tech, months after the state regulator ordered Polymarket to stop offering sports event contracts to Tennessee customers.
What did Tennessee order Polymarket to do?
The Tennessee Sports Wagering Council sent cease-and-desist letters dated Jan. 9, 2026 to Polymarket, Kalshi and Crypto.com’s North American Derivatives Exchange, according to copies of the letters reported by The Block and other industry outlets. The agency cited Tennessee’s Sports Gaming Act, which requires state licensure for entities accepting wagers on sporting events.
In the Polymarket letter, SWC Executive Director Mary Beth Thomas said the platform’s sports event contracts were not compliant with Tennessee consumer protections and presented a threat to the state’s public interest. The council ordered Polymarket to stop offering sports event contracts to Tennessee customers, void open sports contracts held by Tennessee residents and refund customer deposits by Jan. 31, 2026.
The Tennessee letters also warned that violations could bring escalating civil penalties, up to $25,000 per violation, and potential criminal referrals under state gambling statutes. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti was copied on the Kalshi letter described in federal court records, and Tennessee officials later defended the order in Kalshi’s federal lawsuit.
Why does the Tennessee football promo matter?
The promotion matters because it was aimed at a Tennessee fan audience while Tennessee’s sports regulator has already told Polymarket to stop sports-contract activity involving state residents. Rocky Top Insider promoted the “ROCKY” code in connection with Tennessee’s Sept. 12 game against Georgia Tech at Bobby Dodd Stadium in Atlanta.
The University of Tennessee athletics department listed the game as a 7 p.m. ET road matchup at Bobby Dodd Stadium in Atlanta. Polymarket’s own Tennessee vs. Georgia Tech market page listed moneyline pricing around 82 cents for Tennessee and 19 cents for Georgia Tech, along with spread and total markets for the game.
Affiliate promotions do not, by themselves, prove that a restricted user can trade. A publisher can run a promo article for readers who are eligible elsewhere, and platform-level account checks can still determine whether a user is allowed to register or place trades. The regulatory issue is narrower: how state officials view sports-contract marketing that reaches local fans after a cease-and-desist order has been issued.
That issue sits inside a larger state-versus-federal fight. State gaming agencies have treated sports event contracts as sports wagering when offered to residents inside their borders. Exchange operators and federal-market advocates have argued that event contracts listed by CFTC-regulated venues fall under federal commodities law, not state sportsbook licensing regimes.
Where does the Kalshi case stand in Tennessee?
Kalshi challenged Tennessee’s order in federal court, arguing that the Commodity Exchange Act preempts state gambling enforcement against its listed event contracts. In KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel, U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger granted Kalshi a preliminary injunction on Feb. 19, 2026, allowing the company to continue operating while the case proceeded.
Tennessee appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit docket shows the Tennessee appeal as No. 26-5235, with the state identifying issues that include whether Kalshi’s contracts are swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act and whether Tennessee officials are preempted from enforcing the Tennessee Sports Gaming Act. The Sixth Circuit heard arguments in the Tennessee and Ohio Kalshi appeals on July 30, 2026, according to SBC Americas.
The Sixth Circuit ruling will not automatically decide every Polymarket question in Tennessee. Polymarket was separately named in Tennessee’s Jan. 9 cease-and-desist letter, while the public federal litigation record in Tennessee has centered on Kalshi’s challenge. Still, the appellate decision is likely to shape how state regulators, exchanges and affiliate partners assess legal risk around sports contracts in Tennessee and other states.
How have other courts ruled on sports contracts?
The federal courts are split. The Third Circuit affirmed Kalshi’s New Jersey preliminary injunction on April 6, 2026 in KalshiEX LLC v. Flaherty, strengthening Kalshi’s position in that circuit. The Ninth Circuit went the other way on Aug. 28, 2026 in KalshiEX LLC v. Assad, holding that Kalshi had not shown that the Commodity Exchange Act likely preempts Nevada gaming regulation as applied to its sports event contracts.
Nevada’s procedural history is especially important because it changed over time. The federal district court initially granted Kalshi a preliminary injunction on April 9, 2025, then later dissolved it on Nov. 24, 2025. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dissolution on Aug. 28, 2026, leaving Nevada with a stronger enforcement position than New Jersey.
Maryland has also sided against Kalshi at the preliminary-injunction stage. In KalshiEX LLC v. Martin, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied Kalshi’s request on Aug. 1, 2025, and the Fourth Circuit appeal remains pending, according to the Ninth Circuit’s summary of related cases. District courts have reached varied results in other states, including Tennessee, Ohio, Arizona and New York.
The result is uneven operating terrain. In New Jersey, Kalshi has appellate support for its injunction. In Nevada, the Ninth Circuit has backed the state’s ability to proceed at this stage. In Tennessee, the Sixth Circuit has not yet issued its decision after the July 30 argument.
What changed in Connecticut?
Connecticut has moved from a narrower late-2025 action to a broader 2026 enforcement push that includes Polymarket. The Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection sent December 2025 cease-and-desist orders to Robinhood Derivatives, KalshiEX and Crypto.com over sports-related event contracts. Those orders did not name Polymarket.
On Sept. 10, 2026, Connecticut officials said they had sent cease-and-desist orders to nine prediction-market companies, including Robinhood, Polymarket and Coinbase, according to NBC Connecticut. WSHU reported on Sept. 11 that the state accused the companies of operating illegal sports betting operations. Connecticut’s Department of Consumer Protection said sports wagers offered through prediction markets can violate state gaming and unfair-practices law.
That Connecticut action matters for the Tennessee story because it shows state regulators are not treating Polymarket as a peripheral player in the sports-contract fight. Polymarket’s U.S. reentry has made its state-by-state exposure more visible, and affiliate marketing around college football gives regulators a public record of how the product is being promoted to local audiences.
What is Polymarket’s affiliate risk?
Polymarket promo-code coverage has appeared across national sports outlets and niche fan publications, including CBS Sports, Fox Sports, Covers and Sports Betting Dime. The format resembles the sportsbook affiliate model: a publisher writes around a game, team or promotion, then directs readers to a platform signup offer.
That model carries different risk when the product is an event contract rather than a state-licensed sportsbook wager. Sportsbook affiliates usually operate inside state-by-state licensing and advertising rules. Prediction-market affiliates are operating while courts are still deciding how far state gaming agencies can go against sports contracts listed through federally regulated market infrastructure.
For Tennessee, the central fact remains the January order. The SWC named Polymarket, identified sports event contracts, demanded that activity involving Tennessee customers stop and set a Jan. 31 refund deadline. The Rocky Top Insider promotion put the “ROCKY” code in front of a Tennessee fan audience eight months later, around a Tennessee football market listed on Polymarket.
What comes next?
The next Tennessee marker is the Sixth Circuit’s decision in the Kalshi appeals argued on July 30, 2026. A ruling for Tennessee would add to the state-side momentum created by the Ninth Circuit’s Aug. 28 Nevada decision. A ruling for Kalshi would deepen the split with Nevada and strengthen the federal-preemption argument exchanges are using against state gambling enforcement.
For Polymarket, the immediate issue is narrower but still material: Tennessee has an outstanding January order naming the platform, Connecticut has now included Polymarket in a broader cease-and-desist sweep, and affiliate promotions tied to Tennessee sports keep the company visible to state regulators. The Sixth Circuit’s ruling will be the next major signal for sports-contract marketing in Tennessee.
