Case: 25-7516, 01/23/2026, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 74 of 110
only “to the extent” of an actual conflict). Further, Kalshi does not show
why compliance with that regulation is impossible. Kalshi vaguely refer-
ences (Br. 37) its operations’ structure, but its licensed competitors have no
difficulty following this requirement—they employ geofencing technology to
limit their products to States where sports betting is legal. 1-StateSER-36.
Kalshi also suggests (Br. 37) that complying with the Nevada regula-
tion would violate a CFTC “core principle” that requires DCMs to provide
“impartial access” to their markets. 17 C.F.R. § 38.151(b). The district court
correctly rejected this argument, finding “no evidence” that the CFTC would
“take adverse action” if a DCM geofences to comply with state law. 1-ER-
26. The impartial-access requirement prevents DCMs from discriminating
based on wealth or exclusivity, see Core Principles and Other Requirements
for DCMs, 75 Fed. Reg. 80572, 80579 & n.51 (Dec. 22, 2010); it does not
require DCMs to offer identical products in every State, see Dan Bernstein,
A Frequent Kalshi Claim Is Being Undermined by Nevada, CFTC , Sportico
(Nov. 12, 2025), perma.cc/DE6H-B4PF. Indeed, Kalshi’s competitor
Crypto.com has restricted access to its platforms by location, and the CFTC
has taken no action. 1-ER-26. Other competitors similarly have launched
or are planning to launch location-restricted prediction markets. 6
6 See Dan Bernstein & Eben Novy-Williams, Fanatics Launches a Predic- tion Market—Without the G-Word , Sportico (Dec. 3, 2025), perma.cc/6YQW-
56
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs