Case: 25-7516, 01/23/2026, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 77 of 110
A. Kalshi Identifies No Irreparable Harm Kalshi claims basically four harms. The district court carefully con-
sidered and rejected each, see 1-ER-26-27, and Kalshi identifies no clear er-
ror in the court’s decision.
Geofencing costs . To comply with state gaming laws and the Wire
Act, other internet-betting companies implement geofencing technology.
See 1-ER-26. Kalshi argues (Br. 64) that it should not have to incur that
cost. But that is just a cost of doing business both for state-regulated sports-
books, see 1-ER-26, and for federally regulated financial institutions, see
U.S. Treas., Fin. Crimes Enf ’t Network, FinCEN Assesses $3.5 Million Pen-
alty Against Paxful for Facilitating Suspicious Activity Involving Illicit Ac-
tors (Dec. 9, 2025), perma.cc/95AW-ZH2T. Indeed, Kalshi already prevents
users from certain countries from accessing its platform. Kalshi, Member
Agreement § VI (Oct. 12, 2025), perma.cc/PAF8-8WLD. Geofencing costs
would be minuscule in comparison to Kalshi’s revenues. See 1-StateSER-
37.
Harms from closing contracts. Kalshi asserts (Br. 64-65) that it
would face financial and reputational harm from closing existing contracts
with Nevada users. But Kalshi has never explained what proportion of its
contracts involve Nevada users or how much it would cost to refund those
contracts—it offers only speculation about what the costs “could” be, 1-ER-
59
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs