Case 2:25-cv-00575-APG-BNW Document 45 Filed 04/09/25 Page 16 of 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
harmed, there is no evidence before me that anyone, Nevada resident or otherwise, has complained of harm from entering into Kalshi’s contracts. V. Public Interest The public interest weighs in favor of a short-term injunction for the same reasons discussed with the other factors. Congress designated the CFTC to have exclusive jurisdiction over Kalshi’s conduct and, right now, that conduct is legal under federal law. Additionally, third parties’ contracts and investment expectations would be disrupted if Kalshi were forced to terminate its existing contracts for Nevada-based users. And that may impact counterparties to those contracts who are neither based in Nevada nor signed the event contracts while in Nevada. See ECF No. 18-1 at 8-11 (describing the potential negative economic consequences to the contractual parties if the contracts are terminated before the occurrence of the relevant event on which the contracts are based). VI. Summary Kalshi is, in some sense, proceeding at its own risk and creating its own harms. Things might turn out differently with election contracts if the D.C. Circuit rules against Kalshi or if the CFTC takes action against Kalshi’s sports contracts. But for now, I will preserve the status quo, which is that these contracts are legal under federal law. So requiring Kalshi to stop altogether and lose goodwill or damage its reputation; to spend millions to geofence, which might result in losing its CFTC designation; or to continue doing what it is doing and face civil and criminal liability in Nevada suffices to show a likelihood of irreparable harm for at least a short term injunction. To the extent the States or other interested parties object to Kalshi offering sports and election event contracts, they must take that up with the CFTC and Congress. Such policy issues are beyond the jurisdiction of this court.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
16
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs