Case 1:25-cv-12578-RGS Document 1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 16 of 28
occurrence or non-occurrence of a future event that is beyond the control of the parties to the
contract; and (ii) the underlying sporting events they concern have economic consequence. See
KalshiEx (D.N.J.) , 2025 WL 1218313, at *2, *6; KalshiEx (D. Nev.) , 2025 WL 1073495,
at *5 n.3.
45.
With respect to the latter requirement, wins and losses in sporting events
have obvious, significant financial consequences for the players, the teams, the owners or
schools they represent, their communities, the television networks that cover the matches, and
other stakeholders. These economic consequences include, among many other things, increased
revenue from ticket sales, sponsorships and TV viewership for winning teams, and boosts in
economic activity for cities where playoff games occur.
46.
The CEA expressly grants the CFTC “exclusive jurisdiction” over all
“transactions involving swaps or contracts of sale of a commodity for future delivery” that are
“traded or executed on a contract market designated” by the CFTC. 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(A). The
CEA also includes a separate provision entitled “Special rule for review and approval of event
contracts and swaps contracts,” which confirms that the CFTC has authority over “the listing of
agreements, contracts, transactions, or swaps in excluded commodities that are based upon the
occurrence, extent of an occurrence, or contingency (other than [certain exemptions]), by a
designated contract market or swap execution facility.” Id. § 7a-2(c)(5)(C)(i). The “special
rule,” added by the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-203, § 745(b), 124 Stat.at 1735-
36, makes clear that the CEA’s grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the CFTC extends to event
contracts.
47.
To the extent the text of the statute leaves any doubt about preemption, the
legislative history of the 1974 amendment to the CEA that established the CFTC confirms that
16
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs