Argentina’s Polymarket Order Is on Record—but Its Geo-List Omits It
Argentina’s March 2026 court order to block Polymarket nationwide remains on the public record. The material update is a conflicting signal from the company: its current geographic-restrictions list describes 39 fully blocked countries but omits Argentina.
That omission does not establish that the judicial measure was reversed or that Polymarket is legally authorized in Argentina. It shows only that the court record and the platform’s published geofencing policy no longer present the same status, leaving current implementation uncertain.
What the court ordered in March
The Buenos Aires City Public Prosecutor’s account states that Criminal, Contraventional and Misdemeanor Court No. 31, led by Judge Susana Parada, ordered Polymarket access blocked throughout Argentina; it also identifies the Buenos Aires City Lottery’s complaint, the Association of Argentine State Lotteries’ confirmation that the platform lacked authorization in every provincial jurisdiction, and a separate complaint from the casino and bingo-hall association.
The order covered more than the website. Google and Apple were directed to remove the mobile applications or restrict access through Android and iOS across the country, including for users already registered in Argentina. The measure therefore targeted both internet access and app distribution.
This was a judicial restriction arising from an unlicensed-gambling case, not legislation declaring every prediction market unlawful. Its scope concerned Polymarket’s operation under the licensing framework applied by the Argentine authorities involved in the proceeding.
Why the service was treated as online betting
Investigators characterized Polymarket as an online betting system presented as a prediction market. Their analysis focused on the substance of the transaction: participants risk money on uncertain real-world outcomes and can profit or lose depending on the result.
The investigation also identified user-protection issues associated with the service at that time. Accounts could be created quickly without identity or age verification, while transactions could be conducted with cryptocurrency or credit cards. Authorities argued that the absence of those checks could allow minors to participate without the controls expected of licensed gambling operators.
Prediction markets can resemble trading venues because participants buy and sell positions before an event is resolved. That design does not produce a uniform legal classification, however. Regulators may examine the underlying wager, the event being traded and the applicable licensing regime rather than accept the platform’s description of the product.
Polymarket’s current list does not include Argentina
The current Polymarket restrictions page calls itself a comprehensive list of geographically restricted locations and names 39 completely blocked countries. Argentina is absent, although the table includes Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The page also distinguishes full blocking from “close-only” treatment, which permits users to exit existing positions but prevents them from opening new ones. Argentina appears in neither category. Polymarket bases those restrictions on a user’s physical location and prohibits VPNs or similar tools intended to evade geoblocking.
The omission is not evidence of legal permission to trade from Argentina. A company help page describes the operator’s stated controls; it cannot cancel a court order or determine whether access is lawful. Conversely, the original order records what third parties were directed to restrict, but it does not prove that every internet provider, app store and technical route remains blocked at all times.
Later coverage still described the restriction as active
Later independent coverage did not present the March measure as reversed. A July 23 Cinco Días review of prediction-market regulation described Argentina as having closed access to Polymarket in March, alongside restrictions imposed in other jurisdictions during 2026.
The international comparison illustrates why a platform may face different treatment from one country to another. Some authorities approach prediction contracts as gambling, while others consider whether particular products could fall under financial-market or crypto-asset rules. Argentina’s proceeding followed the gambling route, with lack of authorization and insufficient identity and age controls forming the core concerns.
The national reach of the Argentine order is particularly significant. Although the case began with a complaint in Buenos Aires City, the finding that Polymarket lacked authorization in every Argentine jurisdiction supported a measure intended to operate across the country rather than only in the capital.
The current status remains unresolved
Three points can be established as of August 14, 2026: Argentina issued a nationwide access-blocking order in March; independent coverage still described that restriction in July; and Polymarket’s current public list does not classify Argentina as either fully blocked or close-only.
The available evidence does not explain whether the omission results from outdated documentation, a change in Polymarket’s technical controls, uneven enforcement or a later legal development. Without a subsequent judicial decision or a direct company statement addressing Argentina, it would be inaccurate to claim either that the order has been lifted or that the platform currently blocks every user in the country.
For Argentine users, technical access and legal authorization therefore remain separate questions. The defensible reading is that the judicial restriction remains publicly documented, while Polymarket’s own compliance page currently gives a different—and incomplete—signal about Argentina.
Also read:
Subscribe to our newsletter
Get the latest Web3, AI, and crypto news delivered straight to your inbox.