Холбооны зохицуулалтын өөрчлөлтийг хүлээх эсэх асуудлаар Kalshi болон Невада муж улсын хооронд хууль зүйн зөрчил үүсэв.
Невада муж улс Kalshi компанийн холбооны шинэ дүрэм гарахыг хүлээх хүсэлтийг эсэргүүцэж байна. Тус мужийн зүгээс Барааны ирээдүйн арилжааны комиссын (CFTC) журам өөрчлөгдсөн ч шүүхийн шийдвэрт нөлөөлөх үндэслэл болохгүй гэж үзэж байгаа юм. Есдүгээр сарын 25-нд Kalshi компани хэргийг дахин хэлэлцүүлэх буюу холбооны шинэ дүрмийг нийтлэх хүртэл хойшлуулах хүсэлт гаргасан ч Невада муж үүнийг шүүхийн үйл явцыг удаашруулж, үйл ажиллагаагаа үргэлжлүүлэх гэсэн оролдлого хэмээн тодорхойлжээ.
Энэхүү маргааны гол цөм нь спорт болон цахим спортын арга хэмжээний гэрээг санхүүгийн хэрэгсэл (swap) гэж үзэх эсэх, мөн холбооны хууль нь мужийн мөрийтэй тоглоомын хууль тогтоомжийг орлох эсэхэд оршиж байна. Невада мужийн хуульчдын үзэж буйгаар, шүүх өмнө нь гаргасан шийдвэрээ Бараа солилцооны тухай хуулийн үндсэн заалтад тулгуурласан тул CFTC-ийн дүрэм өөрчлөгдөх нь шүүхийн байр суурийг өөрчлөх баталгаа биш юм.
Одоогоор АНУ-ын Есдүгээр тойргийн давж заалдах шатны шүүх Kalshi-ийн спорт болон цахим спортын таамаглалын зах зээл нь мужийн мөрийтэй тоглоомын хяналтаас гадуур байх боломжгүй гэсэн байр суурьтай байна. Иллинойс мужийн шүүхээс гаргасан урьдчилсан шийдвэр нь үүнтэй зөрчилдөж байгаа ч, энэ нь салбарын хэмжээнд зохицуулалтын тодорхойгүй байдал хэвээр байгааг харуулж байна. Шүүхүүд эдгээр асуудлаар эцсийн шийдвэрээ гаргаагүй байгаа тул операторууд болон зохицуулагчдын хоорондох хууль зүйн тулаан үргэлжилсээр байна.
Дэлгэрэнгүйг эх сурвалжаас харах
↓Эх сурвалжийг нээх ↓
Nevada is pushing back on Kalshi’s attempt to wait for new federal rules before the Ninth Circuit considers its rehearing petition. The state says the coming Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) changes may not touch the legal reasoning behind the court’s ruling, leaving prediction-market operators with the same state-regulation problem even after the rulebook changes.
That distinction matters if you follow esports event markets: a federal regulator changing how contracts are classified does not automatically mean a court will abandon its reading of the law. Nevada’s argument, reported by CasinoBeats, is that the Ninth Circuit’s analysis rests on the Commodity Exchange Act itself, not just the current wording of one CFTC regulation. The dispute is part of the broader CFTC rulemaking debate over prediction markets.
A new rule is not a new statute
In a September 25 letter, Kalshi asked the court to rehear its case en banc, meaning before all eligible judges, or to hold the petition until the CFTC publishes a revised version of Section 40.11. The company pointed to the agency’s stated intention to revise the regulation within the next two months. Nevada says that schedule is not a reason to put the court proceedings on ice.
Nevada’s lawyer, Nicole Saharsky of Mayer Brown, argued in the filing that the court already knew the CFTC intended to revise the provision when it issued its decision. The state’s point is narrower than saying the agency’s work is irrelevant: a planned revision signals when a change might arrive, but does not establish that the change will alter the court’s reasoning.
According to Nevada, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Kalshi’s sports-event contracts were not swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act based on the statute’s text, context and purposes, rather than simply the current language of Section 40.11. A swap is a type of financial contract regulated under federal derivatives law. Whether event contracts fall into that category, and whether federal authority displaces state gambling oversight, is the central jurisdictional clash.
The CFTC has sent two proposed rules to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review. One would further define a swap to include event contracts; the other would exclude casino-style gambling products. Those proposals could reshape federal rules, but their existence does not establish that the Ninth Circuit will revisit its statutory analysis.
Kalshi’s request is still on the board
Kalshi’s procedural argument is that the anticipated CFTC change could matter to the court’s consideration of rehearing. The Ninth Circuit has not yet decided whether to grant the petition or pause its consideration, so Nevada’s position is an argument in the case, not a ruling that settles the question.
Nevada also characterises the delay request as an effort to prolong Kalshi’s operations while the dispute remains unresolved. That is the state’s allegation, not a finding by the court. The distinction matters: the legal fight is live, and a sharp filing does not become a judicial conclusion just because it makes for a tidy headline.
The broader state-level fight over Kalshi’s event contracts shows why the rehearing matters beyond Nevada. Operators offering esports markets face the same basic uncertainty: a product may be presented as a federally regulated contract, while state authorities view it through the lens of gambling law.
Courts are still setting the boundaries
In August, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled that Kalshi could not block Nevada gaming regulators from overseeing its platform, concluding that the Commodity Exchange Act likely does not pre-empt state gaming law. The source also points to a separate Ninth Circuit ruling in Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi, which held that the act does not authorize sports betting on tribal land, and to Sixth Circuit rulings allowing Ohio and Tennessee to enforce their sports-gambling laws against Kalshi.
Those cases form a wider appellate backdrop, not a guarantee that every court will reach the same result. A separate Kalshi ruling involving esports wagering is another reminder that the regulatory environment is being shaped through multiple legal disputes, not one neat federal rule change.
Illinois adds another unresolved front
Illinois offers a contrasting piece of the puzzle. A federal judge granted in part preliminary-injunction requests involving Kalshi, Coinbase and the CFTC, finding that state gaming-licensing regulations conflict with federal law governing sports-event contracts. The precise terms of the injunction still need to be drafted, and the parties were ordered to submit a proposed version by October 29.
The Illinois Gaming Board considers sports-event contracts illegal, untaxed gambling. The state has imposed a transaction tax of 1.75% to 3.5% on sports-event contracts offered by prediction markets, while challenges to its wagering fees remain unresolved in the case. That separate proceeding does not settle Nevada’s appeal, but it underlines how differently federal and state rules can collide across the same product category.
The practical question for operators is whether federal treatment of a contract can shield it from state gaming requirements when courts have characterised sports-event markets as gambling. The CFTC could eventually revise its rules, but Nevada’s filing makes the key point: changing an agency regulation does not necessarily change a court’s interpretation of the statute beneath it. The rehearing petition, federal rulemaking and Illinois injunction terms are all still outstanding.
