Case 1:25-cv-08846-AT Document 60-1 Filed 12/03/25 Page 13 of 31
their respective gaming jurisdictions. This cannot be the case. Any preemptive effect that the CEA has only applies to lawful transactions that fall under the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction. See 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(A). Kalshi’s sports-event contracts are neither. 1. The CEA does not give CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over gaming-related sports-event contracts Kalshi rests its case on the argument that the CEA grants “exclusive jurisdiction” to the CFTC over its sports-event contracts, and therefore preempts state law and, in effect, repeals IGRA by denying jurisdiction to other regulators. See Pl. Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 4–5, 16–17 (ECF No. 16). However, Kalshi’s sports-events contracts are not valid “swaps” or transactions based on “excluded commodities.” Specifically, Kalshi’s sports-event contracts are not dependent on the occurrence , nonoccurrence, or extent of the occurrence of a sports event—i.e., whether the sports event occurs or the extent to which it occurs—but rather on the outcome of the sports event—i.e., which team wins. 3 Nor is there any financial, commercial, or economic consequence” associated with Kalshi’s sports-event contracts. Aside from whether the purchaser of a sports event contract wins or loses his bet, Kalshi’s sports-event contracts have no direct financial consequences for the purchaser. 4 The CFTC therefore does not have exclusive jurisdiction over these sports-events contracts. 3 This is precisely what the Nevada District Court held in three recent decisions. N. Am. Derivatives Exch., Inc. v. Nevada ( Crypto.com ), No. 2:25-cv-978, 2025 WL 2916151, at *9 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2025) (holding sports-event contracts are not “swaps” because they “turn on the outcome of the live event, … not on the ‘ occurrence, nonoccurrence, or the extent of the occurrence ’ of a live event” (emphasis added)); KalshiEX, LLC v. Hendrick , No. 2:25-cv-00575, 2025 WL 3286282, at *3 (D. Nev. Nov. 24, 2025); Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Dreitzer , No. 2:25-cv-1541, 2025 WL 3283308, at *1 (D. Nev. Nov. 25, 2025). 4 To constitute a valid “swap,” an event contract must be “dependent on the occurrence, nonoccurrence, or the extent of the occurrence of an event or contingency associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence.” 7 U.S.C. § 1a(47)(A)(ii). Similarly, an “excluded commodity” means, among other things, “an occurrence, extent of an occurrence, or contingency … that is—(I) beyond the control of the parties to the relevant contract,
13
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs