some importance with an antecedent cause—perhaps better coaching. Put another way, a three- hour-long game, and the Titans’ winning that game, are both occurrences of events. As the plaintiffs put it, and the court agrees, “President Trump winning the 2024 presidential election was an outcome, but also an event.” ( Id. ) 15 Based on the plain language of the statute, the plaintiff has shown a likelihood of prevailing on the issue of whether its event contracts concern the occurrences of events. Moreover, this court’s interpretation of the CEA squares with how courts have construed it outside of sports-betting. For example, in United States v. Phillips , the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for a new trial. 155 F.4th 102, 133 (2d Cir. 2025). The defendant, a hedge fund founder, had been convicted of commodities fraud under the CEA for manipulating the U.S. dollar/South African rand exchange rate. Id. at 108, 111. The scheme was as follows: Phillips purchased an option that would pay out if, at some point between October 30, 2017, and January 2, 2018, the exchange rate dropped below 12.50 rand to 1 dollar. This type of option is called a “one-touch barrier option”—if 1 dollar were worth less than 12.50 rand (the “barrier”) at any moment (“one touch”) during that period, the option would be triggered. 15 The District of Colorado reached the opposite conclusion in an opinion cited by the defendants. There, the court dissolved the preliminary injunction it had originally entered in Kalshi’s favor because it found that “Kalshi’s event contracts are based on the outcomes of sporting events or on things that happen during a sporting event. Thus, they are not swaps within the CEA’s meaning.” Kalshi D. Nev. II , 2025 WL 3286282, at *6. The court reasoned: the word “event” in this definition means “a happening of some significance that took place or will take place, in a certain location, during a particular interval of time, such as a particular sporting event or an organized activity or celebration for the public or a particular group,” and does not mean an outcome. Id. (citing N. Am. Derivatives Exch. , 2025 WL 2916151, at *8). No other court appears to have examined this precise issue in as much depth as the District of Colorado, although the District of New Jersey, in its analogous case, found that “Kalshi’s sports-related event contracts fall within the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction” and granted Kalshi’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Kalshi D.N.J. , 2025 WL 1218313, at *6.
15
Case 3:26-cv-00034 Document 48 Filed 02/19/26 Page 15 of 25 PageID #: 883
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs