States Can Regulate Prediction Markets As Gambling, Federal Appeals Court Rules (cnn.com) 27
A federal appeals court has ruled that states can regulate prediction markets like Kalshi as gambling, handing state regulators their biggest legal victory yet against the booming industry. "There are still related lawsuits pending across the country, and legal experts believe the matter will ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court," reports CNN. "But Friday's ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the largest courtroom victory to date for the states as they seek to regulate prediction sites." CNN reports: The 3-0 ruling came from a panel of three Trump-appointed judges. The case originated from Nevada, where regulators tried to shut down the Kalshi prediction site. [...] "The substance of the sports event contracts offered on Kalshi's (exchange) is sports gambling, regardless of whether Kalshi calls them swaps," the appeals panel wrote Friday, adding that "Kalshi's attempts to distinguish its sports event contracts from sportsbooks betting are unpersuasive." The judges also said it was "disingenuous" for Kalshi to argue in court that its products weren't sports-betting when it previously used that phrasing in marketing materials. Kalshi spokeswoman Dani Lever said in a statement: "Despite the Ninth Circuit's opinion, we still believe the CFTC regulations as written do not prohibit sports contracts, and in any event, the CFTC is working to clarify those regulations. We will be seeking further review."
"It's the first ruling against Kalshi at the appellate level, and the opinion seemed to be pretty brutal for the company," said Dustin Gouker, an independent journalist who covers the prediction industry. "This gets us one step closer to an almost inevitable Supreme Court case on the legality of sports event contracts."
"It's the first ruling against Kalshi at the appellate level, and the opinion seemed to be pretty brutal for the company," said Dustin Gouker, an independent journalist who covers the prediction industry. "This gets us one step closer to an almost inevitable Supreme Court case on the legality of sports event contracts."
As expected (Score:3)
There is nothing unusual about states having regulations in addition to federal regulations.
Alcohol is federally regulated. It is also subject to state and local regulation.
Re:As expected (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if you're not stupid enough to gamble because you know you have to lose because of course you do you're going to be negatively affected by this because tens of millions of young men will gamble with money they don't have to lose and that will increase crime and cause a ton of other problems.
This is a classic chesterton's fence where you don't take the fence down without understanding why the fuck it was put up. Gambling is highly addictive so it needs to be carefully regulated. Criminalizing it isn't a good idea either keeping it locked away to one state and then heavily regulating it in that state more or less seem to be working. And we just pissed that all away.
Re: (Score:2)
Who wants to be the one to break this news to the California Air Resources Board?
There is actually a specific exemption granted under federal law that allows that (which Trump is currently trying to withdraw).
One state (Score:2)
Downtown San Jose has two casinos. Just cards, but that is legal gambling in California.
But this is not an example of state law overriding federal. The US Code statute defines:
(1) âoeillegal gambling businessâ means a gambling business whichâ"
(i) is a violation of the law of a State or political subdivision in which it is conducted;
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah but Federal regulations override state regulations.
Except when they don't. Broadly oversimplifying, states can give additional protections to consumers/employees/the public over and above what the feds give.
And it happens a lot. That's why the federal minimum wage is ~$7/hour, and 30 states have raised it to twice that or more.
If the supreme Court wasn't corrupt (Score:2)
This last time we fucked up so bad I don't think there's any coming back from it. I'm happy to be proven wrong but the shit's about to hit the fan in so many ways and there's fuck all we ca
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you're not stupid enough to gamble because you know you have to lose because of course you do you're going to be negatively affected by this because tens of millions of young men will gamble with money they don't have to lose and that will increase crime and cause a ton of other problems.
Also at a macroeconomic level, gambling is like a government tax where the collected revenue is entirely handed over to a private individual or company, i.e., a tax following by a 100% kickback or 100% inefficiency. Gambling and taxes both depress the economy by pulling money away from consumers, particularly the poor consumers that tend to spend and not save.
So you're patently wrong. Like extremely wrong (Score:2)
But otherwise no that's not how that works. You still need roads and schools and police and fire departments and you need regulations to make sure that the shit people sell you is safe because it won't be if they don't face consequences for sel
Re:As expected (Score:5, Informative)
Alcohol is federally regulated. It is also subject to state and local regulation.
While your general argument has merit, alcohol is a bad example because states' control over that particular substance is explicitly granted in the constitutional amendment that repealed prohibition.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but it is an example that I expected most people to be familiar with. See also: Tobacco, Firearms, Gambling, Minimum Wage, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless of course if you want to lower the drinking age to 18, then you lose 10% of your highway funding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it is true that the exact wording of the amendment says that states can be as restrictive as they want on alcohol, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they can be more lenient than the feds.
Supreme Court will overturn it (Score:4, Informative)
It should be a bigger deal that the Chief Justice of the supreme Court is a corrupt sellout but well here we are. Half the country is quaking in their boots because 34 trans girls might play sports and one of the most powerful men on the planet is openly taking bribes and they shrug their shoulders.
I don't know how a species like that survives the next 50 years let alone the next millennia.
Re: (Score:1)
The "No Shit Sherlock" Revelation. (Score:3)
Oh, so after addicting an obscene amount of society to an obvious legalized gambling market spread far and wide online with drug-dealer level marketing giving away a few spins for free with pretty pop-up ads on the pediatric channel..we finally speculated that was in fact..gambling.
Show me the kissing junkie one who's offended about wiping the lipstick off the pig and finding a pig, and I'll show you a gambling addict in denial.
We've got plenty now. No thanks to speculative markets pretending to be Grandma baking fiscal cookies for your 401k.