Share
Polymarket and Kalshi are continuing to accept new users from India and process their trades, defying a formal declaration from the country’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology that both platforms are operating illegally. The standoff is emerging as one of the more consequential early tests of whether US prediction market platforms can sustain a strategy of entering foreign markets faster than regulators can close them.
The ministry sent letters to VPN providers last month warning that Indian users were still reaching “illegal and blocked prediction market and online betting platforms” through their services. The advisory named Polymarket explicitly and called on internet service providers to cut off access. Neither platform has complied with the spirit of that request.
India’s legal position on prediction markets moved from contested to explicit on May 1, when the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Rules, known as PROGA, came into force. The legislation imposes a broad ban on what it classifies as “online money games.” Legal experts have confirmed that prediction market platforms fall within that definition. Several domestic operators, including Probo, had already wound down their Indian operations after the bill passed Parliament last August, citing financial liability.
The US platforms have taken a different approach. Kalshi’s legal counsel, Valeria Vouterakou, said the company has been in contact with the Indian government and has not received a direct instruction to stop operations. Kalshi continues to onboard new users who are required to complete identity checks before trading. Separately, Kalshi announced plans to expand into 140 countries following a significant capital raise last year, and India is regarded internally as a priority market.
Polymarket does not include India on its list of restricted countries and says it has geoblocking measures in place wherever its services are not permitted. The platform operates without identity verification, which makes it easier for Indian users to access it through VPNs or DNS changes. The ministry warned VPN providers that facilitating access to blocked platforms could expose them to legal liability.
The commercial logic for staying is visible in the trading data. Indian Premier League (IPL) cricket matches have generated betting volumes on Kalshi that at times rival activity on US Major League Baseball games. A May 7 match between the Lucknow Super Giants and Royal Challengers Bengaluru drew $27.7 million in combined trading across both platforms. That figure, for a single midweek fixture in an ongoing domestic tournament, illustrates the scale of demand that India represents for platforms seeking global growth.
The government has highlighted a further concern beyond the regulatory classification of the platforms. Payments on both Kalshi and Polymarket are settled in dollar-pegged stablecoins, and the ministry has flagged that structure as a threat to economic integrity, raising concerns about regulatory evasion and harm to public order. Stablecoin-based settlement gives users a payment rail that sits largely outside India’s domestic financial oversight.
India is not the only jurisdiction where this tension is playing out. Brazil moved more aggressively last month, blocking Kalshi’s launch almost immediately after it went live in the country. Brazilian authorities ordered telecom providers to restrict access to both Polymarket and Kalshi, describing them as gambling services structured to resemble financial products. Unlike India, where enforcement against international platforms has so far been limited to advisories and warnings to intermediaries, Brazil acted at the network level.
This matters because both platforms built much of their credibility through years of engagement with US regulators and eventual oversight from the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission. But that regulatory standing carries little weight in India. Authorities there have consistently classified both platforms as illegal under domestic law, regardless of their status in the United States.
For Indian users, the risks could increase if regulators move beyond warnings and website restrictions. Escalated enforcement against payment channels or platform access could potentially disrupt withdrawals, freeze accounts, or limit users’ ability to recover funds.
Share
preferred on
