Case 3:25-cv-06162-JSC Document 35 Filed 09/04/25 Page 29 of 34
1
Concerning Kalshi’s advertising practices, Kalshi will not suffer any legitimate hardship
2
from the issuance of a preliminary injunction halting its false and misleading advertisements.
3
“Indeed, there is no harm to a defendant from an injunction which prevents continuing
dissemination of false statements.” Pom Wonderful Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Purely Juice, Inc. , No. CV-
4
5
07-02633 CAS (JWJx), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55426, at *42 (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2008). Requiring
6
a defendant to refrain from using false statements “... poses little, if any, harm to [the defendant].”
Id . (internal citations omitted) (quoting Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. , 87 F. Supp. 2d
7
8
992, 998 (N.D. Cal. 2000)).
9
Kalshi has knowingly made false statements to consumers through numerous advertising
10
campaigns. The inconvenience arising from a court order directing Kalshi to cease false
11
advertising pales in in comparison to the harm incurred by the constitutional infringement of tribal
12
sovereignty and diversion of essential gaming revenue, which the Tribes rely upon to provide
13
essential services. The balance of hardships, therefore, weighs decidedly in favor of granting a
14
preliminary injunction.
15
d.
Public Interest
16
In deciding what issues affect the “public interest,” courts have given considerable weight
to the carrying out of executive functions of the government as well as the intent of Congress. See
17
Winter, 555 U.S. at 24 (“In this case, the District Court and the Ninth Circuit significantly
18
19
understated the burden the preliminary injunction would impose on the Navy’s ability to conduct
20
realistic training exercises, and the injunction’s consequent adverse impact on the public interest
in national defense.”); see also Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney , 602 U.S. 339, 362 (2024) (“When
21
22
addressing the public interest, courts must defer to Congress’s articulation of that interest in the
23
[Act] itself.” (citing 29 U.S.C. § 151 (“It is . . . the policy of the United States to . . . encourag[e] .
24
. . collective bargaining and . . . protec[t] the exercise by workers of full freedom of association,
self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing . . . .”).); Virginian Ry.
25
Co. v. Sys. Fed’n No. 40 , 300 U.S. 515, 552 (1937) (“The fact that Congress has indicated its
26
27
28
20 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES [ Case No.: 25-cv-06162-JSC]
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs