Case: 2:25-cv-01165-SDM-CMV Doc #: 69 Filed: 03/09/26 Page: 20 of 21 PAGEID #: 913
proof that the sports-event contracts are regulated by or permissible under the
CEA—and the Court has concluded they are not.
Impossibility . Kalshi also argues that it would be impossible to comply
with the CEA’s core principles and Ohio’s sports gambling laws at the same time.
CFTC regulations require DCMs to provide “impartial access to its markets and
services.” 17 C.F.R. § 38.151(b). Meanwhile, Ohio’s sports gambling laws restrict
licensees from accepting wagers made by individuals who are not physically present
in Ohio. Ohio Rev. Code § 3775.11(A). In Kalshi’s view, the CFTC’s impartial-access
rule is in direct conflict with Ohio’s location-based requirements. But Kalshi offers
nothing but its own ipse dixit that the CFTC would view geographic restrictions
predicated on compliance with state law as “partial.”
Kalshi fails to establish a likelihood of success on a conflict preemption
theory.
B.
Irreparable Injury
Kalshi next asserts that it will face wide-ranging irreparable injury without
an injunction, including: the threat of civil and criminal enforcement action, harm
to customer goodwill and the company’s reputation, and the cost of implementing
geofencing technologies. Because Kalshi fails to carry its burden on the remaining
three factors, analysis of irreparable injury is unnecessary.
C.
Balance of Equities
Because Kalshi seeks an injunction against a state government, the final two
preliminary injunction factors (harm to third parties and the public interest) are
considered together. Churchill Downs , 162 F.4th at 643. Kalshi argues that
20
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs