Written by :
Published on :
From April 26 to April 27, the online prediction market Kalshi reported 77.9 percent of all contracts traded were sports betting related. The company began offering sports betting options in late January.
At first Kalshi CEO, Tarek Mansour, poo-pooed the idea of offering sports betting related contracts, saying "it was far too niche for casual users", and "would spook our investors".
Mansour added: “No one wants to trade on a bunch of grown men tossing around an inflated leather orb,” he said. “Let’s stick to NYC rainfall and hot dog prices.”
Kalshi insists "We’re not a sportsbook. We’re an exchange. That means we’re regulated, at the federal level, by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)."
Let's see what @Kalshi did this weekend... in case there remains any doubt they are now a sports first company... all else be damned (except for the presidential election)...#justdontcallitsportsbetting pic.twitter.com/P8swYsnIjM
— Alfonso Straffon (@astraffon) April 28, 2025
The stunning not-so-stunning numbers as a New Jersey federal court granted Kalshi's motion for preliminary injunction against the NJ Division of Gaming Enforcement, claiming that the company's sports-related event contracts fall within the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction.
Gaming attorney Daniel Wallach offered the following analysis via his Twitter feed:
"Heavily factoring into the court’s decision was a 2021 law review article written by @JonesDay
lawyer David Aron, entitled “States’ Big Gamble On Sports Betting” (which was cited four times in the opinion):"
Heavily factoring into the court’s decision was a 2021 law review article written by @JonesDay lawyer David Aron, entitled “States’ Big Gamble On Sports Betting” (which was cited four times in the opinion): pic.twitter.com/pOmSCbSLZA
— Daniel Wallach (@WALLACHLEGAL) April 28, 2025
Wallach cited important aspects of the court filing.
“See Aron & Jones, at 79-80 (stating that sports bets may meet the requirement of a potential financial, commercial, or economic consequence). Kalshi references a few recent examples of the economic impact of sporting events in television, advertising, and local communities.
“Therefore, at this stage, Kalshi’s sports-related event contracts evidence—by their very existence—the CFTC’s exercise of its discretion and implicit decision to permit them.
“I am persuaded that Kalshi’s sports-related event contracts fall within the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction. Defendants argue that sporting events are without potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence. On the record before me, I disagree.
"The special rule for event contracts states that no agreement, contract, or transaction determined by the CFTC to be contrary to the public interest may be made available on a registered market.”
|
