prohibits those contracts. Id. § 7a-2(c)(5)(C)(ii) (“No agreement, contract, or transaction determined by the [CFTC] to be contrary to the public interest . . . may be listed or made available for clearing or trading on or through a [DCM].”). Here, the CFTC made such a determination when it promulgated 17 C.F.R. § 40.11(a)(1), wherein it categorically prohibited event contracts that “involve[], relate[] to, or reference[] . . . gaming, or an activity that is unlawful under any State or Federal law.” Kalshi contends that bans of event contracts under the Special Rule entail a two-step process, whereby: (1) the event contract must involve one of the enumerated, prohibited activities under § 40.11(a)(1); and (2) the CFTC must conduct a separate 90-day public interest review under § 40.11(c) and conclude such an event contract is contrary to the public interest. See ECF No. 2, at 7; Pl.’s Reply in Support of Prelim. Inj., KalshiEX LLC v. Martin , No. 1:25-cv-01283- ABA, ECF No. 29 at 11–12 (D. Md. May 19, 2025). Not so. Contrary to what Kalshi suggests, § 40.11(a)(1) is a categorical prohibition on event contracts that involve gaming or activity that is unlawful under federal or state law; there is no two-step process because the CFTC has already determined that such event contracts are contrary to the public interest. Additionally, this determination negates the need for a 90-day review of such event contracts. Rather, § 40.11(c) is meant to allow the CFTC discretion to review event contracts
10
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs