2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
51 we officially bless this, they haven't yet said, it's bad, and the way Congress wrote the statute, Kalshi just has to self-certify. So, in a sense, from a practical standpoint, that's the same thing. That's the grapple I've got. MS. WHELAN: Certainly. And I will note that the CFTC has -- did initiate review of a different exchange. Now, I don't fully understand what happened there because it's not what's before us, but it's my understanding that the CFTC may have some concerns about it, and like my friend on the other side, I would welcome the CFTC to weigh in here, but I don't think it's necessary. And I want to explain why. Because I think Kalshi has set up a bit of a false dichotomy. They're saying we either have to comply with what the Board is saying and suffer all this harm or we have to violate Nevada law according to what the Board says and face the consequences. There's a third option, though. They can apply for licensure with the NGCB. That's the avenue that the NGCB left open for them, and it's what numerous entities have done. Any entity -- FanDuel, DraftKings, MGM, they are all licensed with Nevada. They have submitted to the jurisdiction of Nevada. They offer sports betting in Nevada. And Kalshi could do the same. And there should be, really, no conflict between being regulated by a State entity and regulated on the exchange side by the CFTC. You look at other industries, semi-trucks, for example, are licensed by U.S. DOT and many States also have
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