title: Connecticut — Enforcement: How hard does the regulator enforce? | advennt.io canonical: https://advennt.io/jurisdictions/connecticut/enforcement/ [Jurisdictions](https://advennt.io/jurisdictions/) [Connecticut](https://advennt.io/jurisdictions/connecticut/) Enforcement Connecticut · Question 10 of 11 # Enforcement: How hard does the regulator enforce? Favourable · Confirmed · AI-generated · [Back to full Connecticut report →](https://advennt.io/jurisdictions/connecticut/) Key section parameters | Jurisdiction | Connecticut (US-CT) | |---|---| | Regulator | Recorded in register | | Favourability | Favourable | | Confidence | Confirmed | | Review status | AI-generated | | Last collected | 18 Oct 2026 | Summary answer Connecticut's enforcement posture centres on a multi-forum dispute over sports-event-contract trading by prediction-market platforms. The Department of Consumer Protection issued cease-and-desist orders and approximately twenty-nine subpoenas to platforms including Kalshi, Robinhood, Crypto.com, Pol… ## Full section analysis Connecticut's enforcement posture centres on a multi-forum dispute over sports-event-contract trading by prediction-market platforms. The Department of Consumer Protection issued cease-and-desist orders and approximately twenty-nine subpoenas to platforms including Kalshi, Robinhood, Crypto.com, Polymarket and Coinbase, treating the activity as unlicensed sports wagering. The Attorney General sued Kalshi in state court seeking an injunction requiring it to stop offering unlicensed sports wagers, framing the dispute in its own words: sports event contracts are no different from sports betting and are not shielded from Connecticut's consumer protection laws by federal law. In the countervailing federal action, the CFTC sued Connecticut arguing Commodity Exchange Act preemption. Two federal-court denials of injunctive relief against Kalshi preceded a Second Circuit appeal, with Kalshi's merits brief filed 1 October 2026 asking the appellate court to shield its sports offerings from the state's gaming enforcers. Separately, Public Act 25-112 has made non-exempt sweepstakes-casino dual-currency offerings a Class D felony since 1 October 2025, carrying up to five years' imprisonment and a fine of up to $5,000, subject only to a narrow retail-grocery carve-out, and stands as a settled, high-severity prosecution risk distinct from the ongoing prediction-market litigation.