A federal appeals court held that Kalshi's sports-event contracts do not qualify as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act, preventing federal preemption of state gambling rules. The decision, issued by a three-judge panel, upholds Nevada's authority to regulate such products. Reporting is limited to left-center sources, which constrains viewpoint diversity.
“‘This is an all-out war’: Inside the casino industry’s fight to stop prediction markets”
Read at CNN →“U.S. appeals court rules against prediction markets, sets up likely fight at Supreme Court”
Read at CNBC →No right-leaning sources covered this
Views the decision as preserving state authority to regulate speculative products and limit social costs from betting expansion.
“Consumer protection and state oversight of financialized gambling”
Sees retention of state police powers and notes potential for Supreme Court review of federal agency scope.
“Federalism and limits on administrative preemption”
Critiques the outcome as adding barriers to voluntary contracts that aggregate dispersed information.
“Freedom of contract and regulatory obstacles to prediction markets”
Observes that all views accept a protection-versus-innovation frame while under-examining the narrow statutory text and non-sports implications.
“Technical statutory holding and missing empirical comparisons”
Ratings by MBFC