Norway plans DNS blocks for Kalshi, Polymarket and 60 other unlicensed sites

Norway is preparing a new enforcement measure against online gambling services, with the country's gambling regulator notifying 62 operators that their websites could be blocked for users within the country. The proposed restrictions include prediction market platforms Kalshi and Polymarket, which allow users to trade on the outcomes of real-world events.

The Norwegian Gambling and Foundation Authority considers the services covered by the notices to be operating in breach of national gambling legislation. The affected operators have been given until 15 October 2026 to respond before the regulator makes its final decisions.

The notification process represents another step in Norway's efforts to enforce its domestic gambling rules against websites operated or made available from outside the country. The latest action follows earlier restrictions that have already resulted in 238 gambling websites being blocked in Norway.

The regulator has indicated that it expects the proposed measures to proceed. However, the distinction between a preliminary notification and a final decision remains important. The operators have an opportunity to respond before the authority completes the process and the notices should not be interpreted as confirmation that every proposed restriction has already taken effect.

How DNS blocking of unlicensed sites could affect Norwegian users

The proposed measures rely on domain name system blocking, commonly known as DNS blocking. This technology is used to translate website domain names into numerical internet addresses. When a domain is subject to a blocking measure, internet service providers can restrict the normal process through which users access that website.

If the proposed orders are confirmed, Norwegian users attempting to visit the affected websites could encounter a blocking notice explaining that access has been restricted. The notice is expected to provide information about the decision and identify the relevant gambling authority.

DNS blocking does not necessarily remove a website from the internet. Instead, it creates an obstacle to accessing the website through the affected internet services. The practical results can vary depending on how the restriction is implemented and whether alternative access routes remain available.

Norway's approach reflects a broader regulatory challenge. International gambling platforms can operate digitally across national borders, while gambling laws and licensing requirements continue to differ between jurisdictions.

The regulator believes that making access more difficult can reduce participation even when some users may be able to find technical workarounds. This approach focuses on limiting convenient access for the wider public rather than guaranteeing that every possible route to a restricted website will be eliminated.

Kalshi and Polymarket face questions over prediction markets

Although the latest enforcement action covers a broad range of gambling websites, prediction markets have drawn particular attention from Norwegian authorities.

Platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket allow participants to take positions on future events. Depending on the products available, these markets can cover elections, economic developments, political decisions, sporting outcomes and other real-world occurrences.

Supporters of prediction markets argue that trading activity can provide information about how participants assess the likelihood of particular outcomes. Critics, however, have raised concerns about financial risks, market manipulation, consumer safeguards and the possibility that participants with confidential information could gain an advantage.

A central issue is how these products should be classified under national law. Providers may present their services as prediction markets or event-based financial products, while a national regulator may consider certain contracts to fall within gambling legislation.

The terminology used by a platform does not, by itself, determine its legal status. Authorities generally need to examine the products offered, the applicable legislation and the circumstances in which users can participate.

For operators seeking to reach Norwegian consumers, the proposed restrictions underline the importance of understanding local licensing requirements rather than relying solely on a product's classification in another market.

Atle Hamar raises insider trading concerns

Atle Hamar, director of Norway's gambling regulator, has raised concerns about the potential information advantages available in prediction markets. His argument centres on the possibility that some participants may have access to information that is unavailable to ordinary users.

Hamar has pointed to research that he says suggests a relatively small group of participants can account for a substantial share of winnings on some prediction market platforms. Such concerns have contributed to wider questions about the fairness and oversight of markets linked to sensitive or unpredictable events.

“The way it works is that we must give notice before we make a decision. In practice, we have concluded,” he told TV 2.

Hamar has also made his concerns about the potential for insider trading explicit.

“Those who have inside information will always win and an ordinary consumer in Norway will generally not sit on inside information,” he said. “It’s a perfect system for insider trading. And we don’t want that, which is why we notify DNS blocking.”

These remarks reflect the regulator director's assessment of the risks associated with prediction markets. They should not be interpreted as proof that Kalshi or Polymarket has committed insider trading or that any particular user has engaged in unlawful conduct.

The wider regulatory question is whether existing legal safeguards adequately address situations in which participants might have access to material non-public information. The answer may depend on the type of event contract, the information involved and the laws applicable to the market.

Norway seeks to reduce access despite technical workarounds

Norway's proposed blocking measures come against a backdrop of strong digital connectivity and considerable consumer purchasing power. Hamar has described the country as an attractive market for gambling operators because of its high income levels, widespread digital adoption and reliable mobile infrastructure.

These characteristics can make online services commercially appealing. However, demand from consumers does not remove the need for operators to comply with national laws governing the products they offer.

Hamar has acknowledged that technically experienced users may still find ways to reach restricted websites. Virtual private networks and changes to DNS settings can sometimes affect how users connect to online services, although their effectiveness depends on the circumstances and implementation of the restrictions.

“If you bother and spend enough time and resources, you can get by. But we know it works. When routing from the website becomes more difficult and payment services become more difficult, it has a good effect on the ordinary Norwegian consumer,” he stated.

The regulator's position is that even an imperfect restriction can create meaningful barriers for people who would otherwise access a website directly. Greater difficulty accessing a service and completing payments may discourage some consumers from participating.

For regulators, the practical effectiveness of DNS blocking remains a key consideration. For operators, the measures highlight the potential consequences of offering services to consumers in a jurisdiction where the required authorisation may not be in place.

European scrutiny of prediction markets continues

Norway's proposed action reflects a wider European debate about the legal status of prediction markets. Authorities in several countries have taken steps to restrict access to Polymarket, while the platform has challenged certain regulatory decisions and argued that its products should be assessed under an appropriate financial services framework.

France ordered internet service providers to block access to Polymarket in July 2026. The company subsequently announced that it would challenge the decision through the French legal process.

The dispute illustrates a broader disagreement about how event-based contracts should be regulated. A platform may argue that its products provide information about the likelihood of future events, while a gambling authority may focus on the financial risks faced by consumers and the requirements of national gambling legislation.

The European Securities and Markets Authority has also addressed the regulatory implications of prediction markets. Its position highlights that some event contracts may fall within existing financial market rules, while other products may be treated as bets under national gambling laws.

This distinction matters because financial regulation and gambling regulation impose different obligations. Depending on the applicable framework, operators may face requirements relating to authorisation, customer protections, trading practices and market oversight.

There is no single assumption that automatically determines the legal status of every prediction market across Europe. The nature of individual contracts and the relevant national legislation remain important factors.

What happens after the October deadline?

The immediate next step in Norway is the response deadline of 15 October 2026. The affected operators have the opportunity to provide their views before the gambling authority reaches final decisions concerning the proposed blocks.

If the authority confirms the restrictions, internet service providers may be required to implement the relevant DNS blocking measures. The practical scope and timing of implementation will depend on the final decisions and the arrangements established for enforcing them.

The outcome could also influence how international operators assess their exposure to Norway's gambling rules. Businesses providing event-based contracts and conventional gambling products will need to consider whether their services meet local requirements and whether their existing compliance arrangements address the relevant legal risks.

For consumers, the proposed restrictions serve as a reminder that a website's availability online does not establish that it is authorised to offer every service in every country.

Conclusion

Norway's proposed action against 62 gambling websites highlights the continuing effort by national authorities to enforce online gambling legislation in a market where digital services can cross borders with relative ease. The inclusion of Kalshi and Polymarket adds another dimension to the debate because prediction markets raise questions that extend beyond conventional casino games and sports betting.

The response deadline of 15 October 2026 is the next important milestone. Until the regulator completes its formal process, the proposed restrictions should be distinguished from final blocking decisions. The outcome will provide a clearer indication of how Norway intends to apply its gambling framework to the affected services.

The wider European discussion is unlikely to end with this enforcement action. Regulators must continue to consider consumer protection, market integrity and the classification of event contracts, while platforms seek clarity about the rules under which their products may operate.

For international operators, the central lesson is the importance of jurisdiction-specific legal compliance. For consumers, the developments underline the difference between being able to access a digital platform and being able to use it lawfully in a particular country.

FAQs

Why is Norway planning to block unlicensed sites?
The Norwegian gambling regulator believes that the affected websites offer gambling services to Norwegian consumers without the authorisation required under national law.

How many websites are affected by the proposed restrictions?
The regulator has reportedly notified 62 operators about planned blocking measures. The group includes Kalshi and Polymarket alongside other online gambling websites.

When must the affected operators respond?
The reported deadline is 15 October 2026. The regulator can consider the responses before making final decisions.

Have the proposed blocking orders already taken effect?
The notifications concern planned restrictions. Final decisions are a separate step, so the notices alone do not confirm that every proposed block is active.

What is DNS blocking?
DNS blocking is a method of restricting access to a website by interfering with the normal process through which a domain name is translated into an internet address.

Why are Kalshi and Polymarket included in the proposed measures?
The Norwegian authority considers the services covered by its notices to fall under national gambling rules. Their inclusion also reflects wider regulatory questions about the legal classification of prediction markets.

What are the concerns about insider trading in prediction markets?
Some regulators are concerned that participants with confidential information about future events could have an advantage over other users. These concerns do not establish that a particular company or participant has committed a legal violation.

Can users always bypass DNS blocking?
No. The effectiveness of a restriction depends on how it is implemented and the technical circumstances. Although some workarounds may exist, blocking can still make access more difficult.

Is Polymarket facing restrictions outside Norway?
Yes. France ordered internet service providers to block access to Polymarket in July 2026. The company subsequently announced that it would challenge the French decision through legal proceedings.

Will European countries classify all prediction markets as gambling?
Not necessarily. The legal classification depends on the characteristics of the contracts and the applicable national rules. Some products may fall under financial regulation, while others may be treated as gambling.