Kalshi vs the CTFC: Will Prediction Markets Survive Ongoing Legal Challenges?

Kalshi faces legal challenges in 8 U.S. States, despite apparent approval from the CTFC

The rapid rise of prediction markets, pioneered by platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket, is testing the regulatory boundaries of U.S. financial law. These online exchanges offer “event contracts” that allow users to bet on the outcome of real-world events, sparking a heated debate: are these regulated financial derivatives, or a new form of wagering subject to state gambling laws?

Kalshi's position is strong, however, widespread state opposition to these kinds of services ensures that the ultimate legal fate of event trading hinges on more defined rules and regulations. 

Kalshi’s Status as a Regulated Financial Exchange

Prediction market operators ground their legitimacy in robust federal oversight, specifically by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

Designated Contract Market (DCM) Status

Kalshi is regulated as a Designated Contract Market (DCM), an entity authorized by the CFTC to trade futures, swaps, and options on commodities. The CFTC is an independent U.S. government agency and has regulated derivatives markets since 1974. This status provides users with several key protections and benefits:

Transparency and Integrity: CFTC regulation and oversight ensures Kalshi operates with transparency and maintains integrity through fair and orderly markets.

Security and Trust: Oversight by a U.S. federal regulator fosters trust among users and provides trust in transaction security, guarding against fraud and manipulation.

Rapid Innovation: As a DCM, Kalshi utilizes the Self-Certification Mechanism provided under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), allowing it to introduce new products quickly without time-consuming regulatory pre-approval.

The Legal Distinction: Derivatives vs. Wagering

Kalshi maintains that its event contracts—which often use a binary “Yes/No” structure with a fixed payout—are financial instruments that serve legitimate economic use cases. These use cases include hedging against political risks or providing market-based forecasting. This distinguishes these contracts from simple gambling. 

The Defining Legal Precedent: The Political Contract Victory

The initial legal test of Kalshi’s regulatory authority centered on political event contracts, resulting in a pivotal – though limited – victory for the platform.

The CFTC initially prohibited Kalshi’s "Congressional Control Contracts," arguing they constituted "gaming" and could undermine public trust in elections. Kalshi challenged this order under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

A federal district court ruled in favor of Kalshi, finding that the CFTC erred in categorizing the contracts as gaming.

The court's rationale was that the term “gaming” must refer to the “act of playing a game” or “playing games for stakes”. Since the underlying event—the control of Congress—relates to politics and elections, and not a game, the court concluded the CFTC lacked authority to prohibit the contract under the gaming exclusion.

Following the initial judgment, the CFTC appealed. Ultimately, the CFTC dropped its appeal in May 2025, solidifying non-sports related event contracts as federally regulated instruments.

The State Challenge and Jurisdictional Split

While political contracts gained clarity, event contracts based on professional sports outcomes face mounting and nearly uniform opposition from state gaming regulators. This tension has resulted in a critical split among federal courts, suggesting the issue is headed for the highest legal authority.

A. State Enforcement and Regulatory Arbitrage

At least eight states have issued cease-and-desist letters or formally opened investigations against prediction market operators, arguing they are illegally operating as sportsbooks.

The Divided Judiciary

Kalshi argues that the federal CEA preempts (overrides) state anti-gambling laws under the Supremacy Clause. However, this argument has received mixed results:

Initial Favorable Rulings: Federal district courts in Nevada and New Jersey initially sided with Kalshi, granting preliminary injunctions that found the CEA preempted state laws, meaning the CFTC was the only entity that could take authoritative action.

Judicial Skepticism: However, these wins are under threat. A judge in Nevada recently stated he was inclined to reverse his initial order, questioning whether Kalshi’s broad definition of a derivative allows “pretty much anything can become a swap.”

Conflicting Rulings: In contrast, a Maryland court was less impressed with Kalshi’s arguments, denying the platform a preliminary injunction and reasoning that the CEA’s preemption might not extend to state gambling laws.

This split on whether the CEA's gaming exclusion covers state anti-gambling laws means the dispute could make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Market Validation and the Path to Regulatory Alignment

Despite the current legal volatility, Kalshi is demonstrating commercial momentum and operating within a broader push toward modernized federal regulatory standards.

Commercial Endorsements and Legal Momentum

Kalshi’s business model has gained significant external validation:

Industry Adoption: Daily fantasy sports operator PrizePicks is expanding into event trading through a multi-year partnership with Kalshi, utilizing a federally approved Futures Commission Merchant status to offer products in 38 states.

League Acceptance: The NHL’s embrace of prediction markets has been noted as a step toward bringing the business model into the mainstream, making it “harder for opponents to characterize the company... as a dangerous upstart” as legal battles continue.

The Need for Federal Harmonization

Kalshi's challenges highlight the broader issue of regulatory fragmentation in U.S. finance, where the rulebooks of the CFTC and SEC often overlap and contain inconsistencies. Both agencies are now committed to regulatory harmonization.

Modernizing Infrastructure: The agencies are focused on aligning rules for key areas, including regulatory reporting and collateral infrastructure. Market participants, including ISDA, support leveraging technology like tokenization to transform the collateral ecosystem, making it more automated and efficient and reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens.

Kalshi’s legal fight is central to determining how innovative financial products are classified in the U.S. While the platform must navigate significant state opposition and ensure strict compliance with the CEA, its status as a federally regulated DCM, coupled with key judicial victories and market momentum, could potentially define a new asset class for the future of finance and Fintech.

Users who use Kalshi may experience taxable events as they trade these event contracts. The IRS views earnings from Kalshi and other prediction markets as ordinary income. Users can expect to receive a 1099 form or W-2G that reports their winnings. Failure to report this income from Kalshi and other services could lead to interest or penalties being levied by the IRS or other tax authorities.

How can Summ help if you’ve traded event contracts on Kalshi?

As specialised crypto tax software, Summ can help you calculate losses and gains from using Kalshi or other prediction markets. Our platform recently partnered with Kalshi to allow users to better track their gains and losses from using the platform. It is also recommended to work with a local tax professional to determine what action is best for your personal circumstances.

{{kalshi-oped-cta-1}}