USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 16
Filed: 10/15/2025
Pg: 52 of 97
“ wagers ” are “initiated, received, and completed within the State.” Md. Code Regs. 36.10.16.03 (2022). Other states impose similar requirements. E.g. ,
N.J. Admin. Code § 13:69O-1.2(e)(2) (2018). But compliance with that
geographical requirement is impossible for a nationwide DCM like Kalshi,
where traders do not take positions against Kalshi, but rather enter into
contracts with other traders across the country. Even worse, if Maryland is
permitted to proceed here, 49 other states could equally attempt to subject
Kalshi to their own geographical limitations.
Even if Kalshi could overcome that hurdle, doing so would bring Kalshi
out of compliance with the Core Principles on which its federal designation
depends. Core Principle 2 requires Kalshi to provide “ impartial access to its
markets and services.” 17 C.F.R. § 38.151(b). A scheme that grants every
state the power to dictate which contracts are and are not permitted in that
state would violate that impartial-access requirement — creating 50 different
markets rather than the single nationwide market Congress commanded. See Hendrick , 2025 WL 1073495, at *7 ( noting the “ potential existential
threat ” to Kalshi if it “ geographically limits who can enter contracts on what
is supposed to be a national exchange ”) .
Complying with 50 states’ gambling laws would be impossible for
Kalshi in other respects. Maryland, like other states, subjects licensees to
37
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs