Case: 2:25-cv-01165-SDM-CMV Doc #: 69 Filed: 03/09/26 Page: 4 of 21 PAGEID #: 897
event contract that has been determined to be against the public interest. Id . The
CFTC has, by rulemaking, concluded that event contracts involving the enumerated
activities are contrary to the public interest and DCMs are thus prohibited from
listing them. 17 C.F.R. § 40.11.
For five years, Kalshi offered a platform for trading event contracts on “an
array of substantive areas” while complying with the CFTC’s “extensive” regulatory
framework. ( Id ., ¶¶ 40, 48.) Then, on January 22, 2025, Kalshi self-certified “the
first of a number of sports contracts that are now available on its exchange.” ( Id .,
¶ 49.) These contracts (which the Court will refer to as “sports-event contracts”)
“allow users to place positions on, for example, which teams will advance in certain
rounds of the NCAA College Basketball Championship or who will win the U.S.
Open Golf Championship.” ( Id .)
Two months later, the Ohio Casino Control Commission sent Kalshi a letter
(i) warning the company that it appeared to be operating an “unlicensed sportsbook”
and “facilitating bookmaking” in violation of Ohio civil and criminal law, and
(ii) demanding that Kalshi cease offering sports-event contracts in Ohio without
complying with Ohio’s sports gambling laws. (ECF No. 1-1 (citing Ohio Rev. Code
§§ 2915.02, 3775.02, 3775.99).)
Like many other states, Ohio legalized sports gambling after the Supreme
Court struck down the federal prohibition on state-approved sports betting. See,
e.g., Commonwealth of Mass. v. KalshiEX, LLC , No. 2584CV02525, 2026 WL
188019, at *3 (Mass. Super. Jan. 20, 2026) (noting that Massachusetts legalized
4
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs