2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
17 THE COURT: Not that they would, but from a legal standpoint, that would fall within the definition of a swap or a commodity, correct? MR. HAVEMANN: I can see the argument that that would be true because as long as it, you know, has financial consequences, which often court cases will, so yes. And, of course, there are protections that Kalshi offers. I mean, this gets to one of their arguments about the public interest, and they say, well, you know, when we regulate a sportsbook, we make sure that there's no self-dealing. I want to be clear, you know, to the extent the Court has questions about that, I'm happy to answer them, but with respect to basically everything that they lay out as a protection that they would provide if Kalshi were subject to State regulation, there are Federal analogs. So know your customer, anti-money laundering, making sure that there's no self dealing, all of that is already required by Kalshi and it's required by -- you know, the CEA imposes 23 core principles -- you know this from our briefing, but this is extensively regulated. So to the extent that the State is saying, you know, these are unregulated sportsbooks, that is simply not correct. They are heavily regulated by a Federal authority. THE COURT: Let's focus on that, because you raised the issue. I noted that in your client's contracts for the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Judy K. Moore, RMR, CRR
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs