Case: 2:25-cv-01165-SDM-CMV Doc #: 69 Filed: 03/09/26 Page: 21 of 21 PAGEID #: 914
requiring “[i]mmediate compliance with Ohio law . . .will harm Kalshi’s users in
Ohio and impose intractable technological difficulties on a very short timeframe[,]”
thus weighing in favor of the injunction. (Mot., 24.) These concerns are dwarfed by
Ohio’s interest in exercising its police power, enforcing its duly-enacted laws, and
regulating sports gambling to promote the public welfare. 9 See Maryland v. King ,
567 U.S. 1301, 1303 (2012) (“Any time a State is enjoined by a court from
effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its people, it suffers a form of
irreparable injury.”). The balance of equities and public interest thus cut in favor of
the State.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Because the Court finds that Kalshi has not carried its burden to establish
that the circumstances demand such extraordinary relief, the Motion for
Preliminary Injunction is DENIED .
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sarah D. Morrison SARAH D. MORRISON, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 This Court has not been called upon to pass judgment on the wisdom or morality of sports betting. But the Undersigned feels compelled to remark on the risk Kalshi’s sports-event contracts pose for Ohioans ages 18 through 20. The General Assembly determined these individuals were too young to participate in legal sports gambling, see Ohio Rev. Code § 3775.99(A)(2), but they have unrestricted access to sports-event contracts on Kalshi’s exchange. This population is particularly vulnerable to problem gambling (Schuler Decl., ECF No. 31-1, PAEGID # 423) and, when trading on Kalshi, is unprotected by Ohio’s responsible gaming laws.
21
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs