Case: 25-7516, 01/23/2026, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 78 of 110
62-63, which is insufficient to support injunctive relief, Herb Reed Enters.,
LLC v. Fla. Ent. Mgmt., Inc. , 736 F.3d 1239, 1250 (9th Cir. 2013).
Anyway, this harm is self-inflicted: Kalshi started trading sports con-
tracts despite the CFTC’s express prohibition on them, 17 C.F.R. § 40.11(a),
and then chose to forge ahead even though the district court warned it was
“proceeding at its own risk and creating its own harms,” 2-ER-80. Kalshi’s
“self-inflicted” harms are not irreparable as a matter of law. Al Otro Lado
v. Wolf , 952 F.3d 999, 1008 (9th Cir. 2020).
Months ago, the CFTC expressly directed DCMs offering sports-re-
lated contracts to have “liquidation or close-out policies and procedures” if
they cannot operate in a given State. 1-StateSER-41. Kalshi apparently
chose to ignore that command, but that is a problem of its own making. And
if Kalshi’s customers continue to use Kalshi despite the CFTC’s warnings,
“they, like Kalshi, are proceeding at their own risk.” 1-ER-27.
Notably, both Kalshi’s competitor Crypto.com and its partner Robin-
hood have agreed to temporarily restrict operations in Nevada, including
closing existing contracts. See 2-StateSER-78; Notice, Robinhood Deriva-
tives, LLC v. Dreitzer , No. 25-cv-1541 (D. Nev. Nov. 26, 2025) (Dkt. 91).
Kalshi has not explained why it could not follow suit.
Risk of losing its DCM status. Kalshi asserts (Br. 65) that limiting
its operations in Nevada would jeopardize its status as a DCM by violating
certain CFTC regulations. But it presented “no evidence” that “the CFTC
60
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs