I am not sure about how the state regulation of betting will turn out (though I would have guessed that it is indeed pre-empted), but the nationwide injunction seems shaky given Trump v Casa: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf
(Which is a bit over $15M at today’s spot prices, by the by)
Issuer I'm seeing is Sectigo Public Server Authentication CA OV R36.
Avast is nominally an AV/VPN company; are you running their tooling on your machine?
Testing via IPv4:
104.18.24.94
104.18.25.94
sha1 Fingerprint=42:AC:E2:34:10:93:10:9B:0E:45:6E:BC:A9:D5:B8:7D:C4:8B:BE:A5
sha256 Fingerprint=E5:C9:F2:9F:4E:6C:30:51:AA:6B:63:AD:AD:F9:58:A4:E0:3E:7A:32:E9:2C:AB:8D:ED:4F:24:4D:D6:F0:DE:E8
notBefore=Oct 23 00:00:00 2025 GMT
notAfter=Nov 1 23:59:59 2026 GMT
Qualys Results [2] for www.cftc.gov Cloudflare in front of Drupal 11
The cert is also valid for: www.cftc.gov accountcreation.cftc.gov cftc.gov smartcheck.gov whistleblower.gov www.smartcheck.gov www.whistleblower.gov
[1] - https://nochan.net/b/Text-Crap/function_fingerprint.sh
[2] - https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=www.cftc.gov&...
I've got no love for Kalshi, but "orders Kalshi to continue operate in New York" doesn't seem to be present anywhere in the actual release.
The article presents the sequence of events as:
1. The State of NY files a lawsuit against Kalshi under the theory that it can be regulated by state gambling laws.
2. The State of NY files for a temporary restraining order requiring Kalshi to halt trading nationally, not just in NY.
3. Kalshi reaches out to the CFTC to claim that NY doesn't have the authority to regulate interstate commerce.
4. The CFTC agrees and uses their authority to override the TRO.
That seems pretty aligned with how interstate commerce is regulated and managed in the US.
I'd love to see another state push for a state-specific restriction and see how that plays out.
That's not to say I think event prediction markets are good. In fact, I think they should be banned. That doesn't change my analysis of the current situation.
Ah yes, "derivatives" which are "not intended to fall under gaming laws" such as... *checks Kalshi website* 58 million dollars riding on which team is the 2027 NFL champion.
Oh yeah, totally a financial derivative there, not related to gambling at all. *sigh*
There's no equivalent instrument for sports.
1. When you "lose" shorting a stock your potential loss is infinite, because you might be on the hook to buy (and then give away) GOOG at an arbitrarily high price. In contrast, the super-bowl bet is probably a fixed amount.
2. In the opposite direction, it's hard to see how the Super Bowl bet can really be hedging to reduce how much you're relying on chance in your life... not unless you happen to own a store selling single-team merchandise and you want to limit how much money you might lose if nobody wants to buy it.
I actually am not opinionated on it other than all kinds of gambling are basically the same -- and that includes a lot of the ways stock market is used in practice.
I do admit gambling addiction is a real thing and that this new super convenient and easy and legal option incrementally brings more people into that world of pain. But I also think it's stupid to ban gambling like they did with alcohol in the last century. It'll just put more control in the hands of the mob.
The mob. There's an organization that I bet is also eagerly lining the pockets of these "kill Kalshi" regulators.
the “states rights” crowd has always used laws passed by Congress, which the CEA has been. other examples such as a Supreme Court overruling itself made a national regulation fall back to the states solely because Congress has not and has never passed a law on the topic, there is insufficient consensus on proposed laws so those topics will remain at the states
in this case, the actual argument is that the case should be heard by the courts at all, and NY wanted to halt operations WHILE it was heard by the courts. CFTC overruled the pre-verdict halting
and finally, the courts of course will likely not result in anything, as the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution is clear that federal law is supreme when there is a conflict, and the CFTC chooses to leverage that
federal government can always choose to ignore a state law, as it does in some markets
> In the lawsuit, filed on July 31, New York seeks a temporary restraining order prohibiting KalshiEX, LLC from offering all event contracts nationwide and more than $36 billion in damages.
This seems naturally the territory of the CFTC. They have exclusive right to regulate futures and derivatives contracts, which Congress handed them. Also, it seems straightforwardly anti-commerce-clause to allow NY to prohibit Kalshi from offering these contracts nationwide.
President Donald J. Trump nominated Michael S. Selig to serve as the 16th Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on October 27, 2025. The U.S. Senate confirmed him on December 18, 2025, and he was sworn into office on December 22, 2025.
This is the time for crypto projects to enjoy Federal protection.
The State of New York does not have the power to compel NYSE to stop operating in New York either, irrespective of what laws NY passed, as that is with the SEC.
They also can’t enforce a law saying companies in New York must file 10Qs every month or something. Again, federal.
See: supremacy clause, interstate commerce. (The latter has been significantly expanded beyond its ordinary meaning for centuries; in here, the theory is that New Yorkers not being able to participate in a market ‘hurts’ other interstate market participants).
HN in general gets ahead of its skis a ton on legal stuff, it’s not personal. I deserve what I’ll get for speaking plainly to you, I hope the fact I’m speaking plainly and incurring cost will encourage you to move slightly more slowly.
In order:
Regulating interstate commerce is a fed thing, yes, that doesn’t mean states are unable to do anything at all to companies operating in multiple states. It was jarring to hear that described as one of the most settled principles we have.
NYS was not asking for a national TRO. It was jarring to read that asserted.
The first paragraph of the CFTC release we are commenting on says it ordered Kalshi to be able operate nationally. It was jarring to read it was made up that the CFTC ordered it to be able to operate.
edit
Interesting, I found KalshiEX LLC v. Flaherty [1] which seems strikingly similar to this case and was ruled in favor of Kalshi.
"The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order. The appellate court held that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) grants the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) exclusive jurisdiction over swaps, including sports-related event contracts traded on CFTC-licensed DCMs."
[1]: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/25...
this one is going to end up in the supreme court, where it will be a toss up. (in previous supreme courts, it would be a non-starter and the third circuit would have been summarily reversed)
> In the lawsuit, filed on July 31, New York seeks a temporary restraining order prohibiting KalshiEX, LLC from offering all event contracts nationwide and more than $36 billion in damages.
https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/court-filings/new-york...
This is the complaint.
If you go to page 29 you'll see what they requested.
The claim they are trying to prevent them from offering all event contracts nationwide is simply false. The closest anywhere is a claim to enjoin them from violating some federal criminal statutes that they would not be violating if they were not operating in new york illegally (IE do not stop them from operating nationwide).
You can also see their is no specific number on the damages. In fact, the only specific number is the request for Kalshi to pay $2000 in costs to the state of NY.
The CFTC is, understandably, relying on people not bothering to read it and so has put out an "alternate set of facts".
The "emergency powers" they speak of are 7 U.S.C. § 12a(9), and they are quite specific.
It gives them the authority to direct a registered entity to do a few specific things. None of those things are relevant to here. It's stuff like emergency margin requirements, position limits, etc. Not "violate state law". It gives them no power to enable a registered entity to violate a TRO, or anything like that. Such a power would have to come through pre-emption.
The CEA gives them zero authority to preempt state law directly, and any pre-emption would have to be argued to already have occurred under the Commodity Exchange Act. They'll argue it occurs because of their order, but it actually doesn't meet the requirements to do that, so then they'll argue the CEA preempts state law.
As you may imagine, this has been argued about before, for a very very very long time.
Gambling is core state police power, and has been found so many times. As such, presumptions against pre-emption would apply, etc. Even in the current court that ignores precedent, using an esoteric made-for-specific-situations emergency power statute like this one would to preempt new york/etc (this is not the only case) law would run clearly afoul of the so-called major questions doctrine.
Lastly, the current CEA regulations actually ban event contracts that are unlawful under state law (17 CFR 40.11):
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/40.11
Prohibition. A registered entity shall not list for trading or accept for clearing on or through the registered entity any of the following: ...
1. (1) An agreement, contract, transaction, or swap ... that involves, relates to, or references terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, or an activity that is unlawful under any State or Federal law;
So trying to pre-empt state law when the existing regulations clearly don't allow event contracts that are disallowed under state law is ... not likely to succeed.
Now, there is also a CFTC-designated contract market that Kalshi operates, and that they could likely exercise significantly more power over, and New York can order them around less on. But that is likely to end up in the supreme court, and harder to predict. Any other court the answer would be clear - congress doesn't have the authority to regulate purely intra-state gambling, etc.
By letter dated October 24, 2025, the Gaming Commission directed Kalshi to “cease and desist from illegally operating, advertising, promoting, administering, managing, or otherwise making available an unlicensed mobile sports wagering platform in New York State in connection with any sports event.”
https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/court-filings/kalshiex...
So yes, technically the restraining order is preventing Kalshi from offering Nationwide contracts.
> New York also prohibits sports wagering on events in which New York college teams participate
Ultimately, this suit is about protecting state gambling taxes and incumbent casinos. I guess I don't feel a particular love for either side.
> August 11, 2026
>
> WASHINGTON — The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today exercised its emergency authority in response to KalshiEX, LLC’s notification of a market emergency and ordered the exchange to continue to operate in accordance with the Commodity Exchange Act’s Core Principles.
Market regulators do have this power.
If you read the complaint, the prayer for relief is quite clear that they only are trying to stop them from operating in new york, deliberately offering gambling to new yorkers, etc.
There is no relief requested nationwide.
https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2026/governor-hochul-and-att...
My impression was that NY wanted a TRO to stop Kalshi operating in New York, not nationally. A TRO seems like a rather extreme measure in that it assumes the plaintiffs win the lawsuit as a premise, but I guess that's partly a function of how long New York has been trying and failing to obtain compliance with its gaming laws, and intended to provoke a preliminary hearing into the merits of the case (vs letting the litigation drag on for years without anyhting changing).
> These are financial exchanges that offer financial instruments and operate across state lines. They match the bid from a resident of one state with the offer of a resident from another state and submit the trade to a clearinghouse that backstops the transactions of customers throughout the country. New York has no business regulating these interstate financial markets.
If true, it seems quite irrelevant that NY is limiting its suit to NY customers. NY would be restricting trade to people in other states. (I am not a fan or user of Kalshi)
The State of New York did NOT file a temporary restraining order, neither in NY or nationally. Please find a citation of that if you want to claim it is true.
Rather the State of New York filed suit here to stop operations in New York:
https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2026/governor-hochul-and-att...
The product that I suspect you're intending to describe, a put option expiring in January 2028 (there is no such contract for February) with a break-even at $300, has a different structure which greatly increases its utility for financial purposes and greatly decreases its appeal for gambling. It's hard for a casual bettor to even identify what the correct product is (it was the $355 strike at close of market today, but it may be different tomorrow!), bets are only accepted in increments of $5,500, and your winnings may be minimal unless Google falls either more quickly or more severely.
pamcake•1h ago
cyanydeez•1h ago
pdonis•58m ago
morkalork•52m ago
skillina•48m ago
charcircuit•43m ago
dcrazy•36m ago
skillina•29m ago
charcircuit•10m ago
amazingman•46m ago
Pxtl•51m ago