Five amicus briefs
An entire world of opposition has taken aim at New York-based prediction market betting giant Kalshi, with five amicus briefs filed against it this week.
briefs filed in the US Court of Appeals
The most eye-catching of all the anti-Kalshi briefs filed in the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, shared by gaming lawyer Daniel Wallach on X, was the 36-strong amicus brief from a group of Attorney Generals:
According to reports, the briefs were all filed in support of New Jersey’s ongoing legal battle against Kalshi. The NY firm got up New Jersey’s nose in April after successfully fending off a cease-and-desist order arguing its Contracts for Differences (CFD)s fall under federal and not state control.
Now Kalshi must fight against five amicus briefs reviewing the New Jersey case from a broader regulatory aspect in another pivotal battle set to define the future of CFD markets in the US.
Forces gather
In April, US District Judge Edward S. Kiel gave Kalshi the green light to continue offering sports and politics betting events in New Jersey. This time round, however, Kalshi faces multiple challenges in the state.
Ohio Attorney General (AG) Dave Yost champions the most eye-catching amicus brief. Yost fronts a coalition of 36 AGs who argue that Kalshi’s CFDs are “disguised sports bets, violating state-level gambling regulations.”
States rightfully have the ability to protect their citizens”
Media sources on Thursday quoted Yost stating: “States rightfully have the ability to protect their citizens from the negative consequences of online gambling, no matter how it’s packaged.”
Yost and his AGs are joined in their fight against Kalshi by the American Gaming Association, and coalitions involving tribal gaming organizations, the District of Columbia, the Northern Mariana Islands, and two anti-gambling groups.
Tribes weigh in
The biggest coalition arranged against Kalshi in New Jersey is of a tribal nature. According to reports, over 60 tribes are listed on the amicus brief as opposing Kalshi.
Multiple national bodies, including the Indian Gaming Association, National Congress of American Indians, Native American Finance Officers Association, and the Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations, all endorsed the action citing infringement of tribal sovereignty.
The AGA, meanwhile, argued in its brief that the CFTC was “not equipped to carry out the regulatory role traditionally played by state governments.”
