Case 3:25-cv-06162-JSC Document 35 Filed 09/04/25 Page 31 of 34
1
Enjoining Kalshi’s unregulated sports betting on Indian lands is manifestly in the public
2
interest. Gambling has always been a subject of concern in the United States. In every other
3
context, gambling has been either prohibited as a public nuisance or strictly regulated because of
the potential harms associated with unregulated gaming. See Cal. Penal Code § 337a(1); 18 U.S.C.
4
5
§ 1084; 18 U.S.C. § 1955. The Court should grant the Tribes’ request for injunctive relief because
6
Kalshi’s contracts are patently contrary to the public interest under the CEA and CFTC regulations
7
and because Kalshi’s gaming activity presents a danger to the public and individual consumers on
8
the Tribes’ Indian lands.
9
Concerning Kalshi’s advertisements, enjoining Kalshi from making further false and
10
misleading statements promotes the public interest. The “Lanham Act is at heart a consumer
protection statute.” TrafficSchool.com, 653 F.3d at 827. “[T]he most basic public interest at stake
11
12
in all Lanham Act cases [is] the interest in prevention of confusion, particularly as it affects the
public interest in truth and accuracy.” AECOM Energy & Constr., Inc. v. Ripley , No. 2:17-cv-
13
05398-RSWL-SS, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160180, at *23 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2017) (citing Kos
14
Pharms., Inc. v. Andrx Corp. , 369 F.3d 700, 730 (3d Cir. 2004). The “Lanham Act is itself a public
15
16
interest statute intended to protect the consuming public and competitors from false and deceiving
statements which a company chooses to utilize in advertising its goods or services.” Suzie’s
17
Brewery , 519 F. Supp. 3d at 856 ((internal citations omitted) (quoting U-Haul Int’l, Inc. v. Jartran,
18
Inc. , 522 F. Supp. 1238, 1242 (D. Ariz. 1981), aff’d , 681 F.2d 1159 (9th Cir. 1982)). As discussed
19
20
above, Kalshi’s advertisements are literally false or, at the very least, likely to confuse and mislead
consumers. See Kretz Decl. ¶¶ 18, Ex. 18; 20, Ex. 20; 47, Ex. 63. Granting a preliminary injunction
21
22
sharply tips in the Tribes’ favor because preventing consumer confusion serves the public interest.
23
By targeting consumers in the sports gaming market with advertisements that claim “sports
24
betting” is “legal in all 50 states,” Kalshi has—explicitly or implicitly—conveyed that “sports
25
betting” is regulated by Kalshi and such regulation provides measures to protect consumers from
26
the potential risks involved in high-stakes betting and addictive, compulsive consumer behavior.
27
28
22 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES [ Case No.: 25-cv-06162-JSC]
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs