Case 3:25-cv-06162-JSC Document 35 Filed 09/04/25 Page 16 of 34
1
not class I gaming or class II gaming, including but not limited to . . . sports betting and pari-
2
mutuel wagering including but not limited to wagering on horse racing, dog racing or jai alai . . .
3
.”). IGRA also establishes the Tribes’ right to enjoin unlawful gaming activity on Indian lands. 25
4
U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) (“The United States district courts shall have jurisdiction over . . . any
5
cause of action initiated by a State or Indian tribe to enjoin a class III gaming activity located on
6
Indian lands and conducted in violation of any Tribal-State compact entered into under [IGRA]
7
that is in effect . . . .”). Not only are the Tribes entitled to permanent injunctive relief under IGRA
8
but, as set forth below, the Tribes satisfy each of the factors necessary to demonstrate that
9
preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate. Without preliminary injunctive relief, the
10
impermissible interference with tribal self-government will persist and frustrate the purposes for
11
which IGRA was enacted – to promote tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and economic self-
12
sufficiency of tribal governments. 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2702.
13
Additionally, the Lanham Act, specifically 15 U.S.C. § 1125, forbids any false or
14
misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, “which . . . in
15
commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, [or] qualities . . .
16
of his or her . . . goods, services, or commercial activities.” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B). The Lanham
17
Act was intended to make “actionable the deceptive and misleading use of marks,” and “to protect
18
persons engaged in . . . commerce against unfair competition.” 15 U.S.C. § 1127. The Lanham Act
19
creates a cause of action for unfair competition through misleading advertising or labeling.
However, “the Lanham Act is at heart a consumer protection statute.” TrafficSchool.com, Inc. v.
20
Edriver Inc. , 653 F.3d 820, 827 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing U-Haul Int’l, Inc. v. Jartran, Inc. , 681 F.2d
21
22
1159, 1162 (9th Cir. 1982)).
23
Kalshi’s myriad false and misleading statements about its platform, products, and services
24
violate 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B). Their commercial advertising deliberately confuses consumers
as part of a broader marketing strategy to attract a large consumer base. See Declaration of Skyler
25
26
Kretz in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (“Kretz Decl.”) ¶¶ 13, Ex. 13;
27
15, Ex. 15; 16, Ex. 16; 28-31, Ex. 28-31. Granting an injunction is necessary to protect consumers
28
7 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES [ Case No.: 25-cv-06162-JSC]
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs