Case 2:26-cv-00151 Document 1 Filed 02/23/26 PageID.23 Page 23 of 27
Utah Code § 76-9-1401(8)(c)(i). But this is a fact the Governor and state officials appear to disregard in their statements. 69. The CFTC has, in an exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction, permitted Kalshi to offer event contracts for trade on its exchange, including its sports-event contracts, which the CFTC views as falling “comfortably within” the CEA and under its own regulatory authority. CFTC Amicus Br at 19. As a result, Kalshi now understands that Defendants, consistent with the Governor’s recent statements, intend to take action against Kalshi, which the Governor incorrectly views as “illegal in Utah.” E. Defendants Have Not Provided Assurances of Non-Enforcement. 70. Kalshi has made good-faith efforts to engage Utah in dialogue. It previously communicated with the Utah AG, and, following the Utah Governor’s social media post on February 17, 2026, Kalshi’s counsel attempted to contact the Utah AG and the Chief Deputy AG to receive assurances of non-enforcement. 71. Despite previously having a positive working relationship with Kalshi’s counsel, the Utah AG and Deputy AG did not reply to those inquiries. The lack of response, combined with the clear threat included in the Governor’s multiple public statements, has led Kalshi to believe that an enforcement action in Utah is imminent. 72. Kalshi therefore has no option but to seek judicial relief. The Utah Governor’s statements, Defendant Brown’s op-ed, and the multiple amicus briefs submitted in courts across the country suggest that Defendants believe Kalshi’s event contracts in Utah violate Utah law and that Kalshi may be immediately subjected to action by the State. Absent any assurances of non- enforcement Kalshi (and its users) face a threat of irreparable harm, leaving Kalshi with no choice to protect its commercial interests and those of its users except to bring this suit.
23
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs