Case 3:25-cv-06162-JSC Document 71 Filed 11/10/25 Page 4 of 13
advertisement because it is not “literally or facially false” to advertise “Sports Betting [is] Legal in
1
all 50 States on Kalshi” or variations of that representation. (Dkt. No. 1 at 59; Dkt. No. 35 at 13
2
n.2; Dkt. No. 35-22 at 2.) “Statements of opinion are generally not actionable under the Lanham
3
Act.” Coastal Abstract Service, Inc. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co. , 173 F.3d 725, 731 (9th Cir. 1999).
4
Kalshi’s advertisement is merely stating an opinion its product is legal, and given multiple courts
5
have agreed with it, Plaintiffs have not shown the opinion is literally false or that Kalshi lacks a
6
good- faith belief in the opinion’s truth. See KalshiEx, LLC v. Hendrick , 2025 WL 1073495 *8 (D.
7
Nev. Apr. 9, 2025) ( declining to enjoin Kalshi’s event contracts to “preserve the status quo, which
8
is that [Kalshi’s] contracts are legal under federal law”) ; KalshiEx, LLC v. Flaherty , 2025 WL
9
1218313 *8 (D. N.J. Apr. 28, 2025) (granting Kalshi’s motion for a preliminary injunction to
10
enjoin state regulation of its sports-related event contracts); see also Coastal Abstract , 173 F.3d at
11
731 (“A bsent a clear and unambiguous ruling from a court or agency of competent jurisdiction,
12
statements by laypersons that purport to interpret the meaning of a statute or regulation are opinion
13
statements, and not statements of fact. ”)
14
B. “ Kids in High School ”
15
Similarly, Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding
16
Kalshi’s second advertisement regarding “ kids in high school. ” (Dkt. No. 35-38 at 2.) First, the
17
advertisement is not false by necessary implication because it does not “necessarily imply” the
18
message minors can bet on Kalshi’s apps because the photo s do not depict gambling. ( See id. ) If
19
anything, “the graphic is susceptible to” a different interpretation, namely, the author hopes high
20
schoolers watch basketball. See Suzi e’s Brewery , 519 F.Supp.3d at 846.
21
Second, Plaintiffs have not alleged their statutory standing to challenge the post even if it
22
did necessarily imply kids under 18 can gamble. Plaintiffs contend “Kalshi is directly competing
23
for the same gaming market, patrons, and gaming dollars that would have been spent in the
24
Tribe’s facility.” (Dkt. No. 35 -6 ¶ 41.) However, Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of
25
success on its claim the “kids in high school” post caused a competitive injury because neither
26
Plaintiffs nor Kalshi allow patrons under 18 years of age to gamble. ( See Dkt. No. 44-3; Dkt. No.
27
44 at 27 n.9.) At the hearing, Plaintiffs suggested Kalshi’s advertising is targeting the market for
28
4
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs