2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
34 we have a final judgment. But the point is that regardless of whether the CFTC prevails on appeal or not, the key point stands, which is that this is a job for the CFTC. This is a judgment that Congress gave to the CFTC. It is not a judgment that Congress wanted 50 States and the District of Columbia to be able to make because, in the view of the sponsor of the act, that would lead to total chaos. That was the point of the 1974 amendments, to protect subjecting exchanges like Kalshi to 51 different potentially conflicting regulatory schemes, which would be just untenable in practice. THE COURT: All right. Let's focus a little more on the damages. You describe the geofencing, or the lack of the need to do it at this point. No doubt it's, I'm guessing, expensive to install geofencing, but I don't have any evidence in front of me that says it's so expensive that it would essentially run Kalshi out of business. MR. HAVEMANN: There is evidence in the declaration that it would cost to the tune of tens of millions of dollars a year. THE COURT: Right, but I don't know if your client's making billions or if it's making hundreds of millions or if it's making tens of millions, in which case then there is that. But it's one thing to say it costs X, but $10 million to IBM is different than $10 million to Joe's Taco Shop. MR. HAVEMANN: So I can certainly represent to you
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