upvote
If it is not gambling then it amounts to an unregulated futures market, which is also illegal. There is no way around this for Kalshi/Polymarket, they have broken the law and the only question is which law was broken.
reply
Right, but the point is that we don't just go from popular outrage about a shady business model to "straight to prison". The courts have to untangle the legalities of the shady business model before we can even determine what the charges would be. And that's what they're doing.
reply
> Right, but the point is that we don't just go from popular outrage about a shady business model to "straight to prison".

We should! Finally incentivize rich people to not screw over the rest of society for a quick buck.

reply
? But Kalshi is regulated by the CFTC
reply
The federal government has claimed Kalshi is a regulated futures market.

https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9281-26

reply
That is the federal government asserting that Kalshi is subject to federal regulation by the CFTC and not state regulation. It is not an assertion that Kalshi is actually in compliance with futures market regulations, nor is it an assertion that the contracts offered by Kalshi are actually legal (there are explicitly illegal futures contracts).
reply
The reason we have judges is that a thing that's 80% sports betting and 20% prediction market is still an online casino.
reply
Why is betting on risky 0DTE stock options legal in Utah but sports not legal?

Why are casinos operated by Native Americans legal but casinos operated by black people illegal?

I don't think "illegal gambling" is illegal for the reasons you want it to be illegal.

reply
Casinos of all kinds are banned in Utah.
reply
This would be a great post for Kalshi's lawyers to make. Hard to believe it though. To be clear it is a not a fundamental proposition of the legal system that every illegal activity be tested before it "actually" becomes illegal. It is a business' obligation to not violate the law, not the other way around.
reply
I'm not going to argue the merits of their business model. But the fact that numerous lawsuits have had mixed rulings indicates that there is at least some legal gray area here.

But if you know better then maybe you should just decree from the courtroom in your house and send your ruling to the AGs of all 50 states.

reply
I don't think there are "numerous lawsuits" which have had "mixed rulings" it's really only a subset of the cases that have had anything remotely construable as positive to these companies. And again, that doesn't excuse their behavior. Bold of you to point to one court saying "I'm not sure" when the vast majorities of the others have said "this is perfectly clear, and here's why the other court is wrong"

Like, do you have any actual argument as to why it's not gambling, or are you just going to hang it on this plausible deniability? It's not like they knew the 3rd circuit would decide in their favor anyway, so I don't really think your point is the slam dunk you're acting like it is. They knowingly engaged in activities that most states consider to be gambling. They aren't even really denying that. They are just saying it falls under federal regulation, but the argument for that is so shockingly poor, it's hard to imagine how the 3rd circuit's decision could stand, but its only on a preliminary injunction anyway, so it's still not quite a merits decision. The third circuit said that by its own logic, Congress must weigh in on whether or not "bingo" is a swap regulated by the CFTC. If you can't understand how facially stupid that is, I don't know what to say.

reply
Apparently having a legal discussion that requires nuance is impossible in this forum.

Yes I think what they are doing is illegal and they should not be permitted to operate outside the gaming regulations of individual states.

But it doesn't matter what I think. I was trying to have a conversation about the gray areas and why we don't just send people straight to jail for trying out a new, novel, (and potentially illegal), business model.

The courts are figuring it out.

reply
The point of my original post, which I think the one youre responding to aligns with, is that we shouldn't have to "wait for the courts to figure it out." Illegal things should be illegal as a matter of the written law, not dicta from jurists. To do that we need legislators that will write narrow laws not influenced by the industry they are regulating, not tied to a poison pill budget proposal, etc...
reply