Case 1:25-cv-12578-RGS Document 1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 13 of 28
alleging that “[t]he availability of Kalshi’s contracts are not limited to Kalshi’s platform, but are
also available on Robinhood, a stock-trading platform accessible via app and webpage.” Id.
¶ 129. Massachusetts further alleges that “[a]pproximately $1 billion worth of Kalshi wagers
were traded on Robinhood during the second quarter of the year, which likely generated an
estimated $10 million in revenue for Kalshi.” Id. ¶ 130.
36.
That same day, Massachusetts filed an Emergency Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin Kalshi from “engaging in any activity in connection
with sports wagering in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts” “until further order of the Court”.
Exhibit 2, Ex. A at 1-2. In its Motion, Massachusetts argues that sports wagers are not swaps
under the CEA, and that the CEA does not, expressly or impliedly, preempt Massachusetts law.
Id. at 13-20.
37.
In light of Massachusetts’s complaint and motion for preliminary
injunction filed against Kalshi, Massachusetts v. Kalshi , No. 2584CV02525, Dkts. 1, 4, and
because Robinhood intermediates its customers’ sports-related event contract trades on Kalshi’s
exchange, there is a real and imminent threat that Massachusetts will file a similar complaint and
motion against Robinhood. Were it to do so, Robinhood would face an immediate threat of civil
penalties and potentially criminal penalties as well, along with the attendant reputational harm
that such an enforcement proceeding would cause. Robinhood’s Massachusetts customers would
also face abruptly losing access to sports-related event contract trading through their Robinhood
account.
E. The CEA Preempts Application of State Gaming Laws to Sports-Related Event Contract Trading on CFTC-Designated Exchanges.
38.
Transactions involving sports-related event contracts traded on Kalshi’s
designated contract market—regardless of whether the orders come directly to Kalshi from
13
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs