Court rules Kalshi sports bets aren’t “swaps,” just gambling with a different name

法院裁定：Kalshi 的体育博彩并非“掉期交易”，本质仍是赌博

Kalshi today lost a major ruling over whether it can evade state gambling laws, as a federal appeals court found that Nevada can stop the prediction market from allowing sports bets. While the Trump administration is trying to help prediction markets avoid state regulation, a panel of three Trump-appointed judges unanimously ruled against Kalshi in today’s decision from the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Kalshi 今日在一项重大裁决中败诉，该裁决涉及其是否可以规避州博彩法。联邦上诉法院裁定，内华达州有权阻止该预测市场平台提供体育博彩服务。尽管特朗普政府正试图帮助预测市场规避州级监管，但美国第九巡回上诉法院的三名由特朗普任命的法官在今日的裁决中一致反对 Kalshi。

The Nevada Gaming Control Board today said the 9th Circuit “emphatically reject[ed] the view that the federal Commodity Exchange Act preempts application of Nevada’s gaming laws to sports-event contracts offered by Kalshi, Crypto.com, and Robinhood.” Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo, a Republican, said that “prediction markets offering sports-event contracts constitute gambling and must comply with Nevada’s gaming laws and regulatory framework.”

内华达州博彩控制委员会今日表示，第九巡回法院“明确驳回了以下观点，即联邦《商品交易法》优先于内华达州博彩法，从而限制该州对 Kalshi、Crypto.com 和 Robinhood 所提供的体育赛事合约进行监管。”共和党籍内华达州州长乔·隆巴多（Joe Lombardo）表示：“提供体育赛事合约的预测市场构成了赌博，必须遵守内华达州的博彩法律和监管框架。”

The judges affirmed a district court order that let Nevada enforce state laws against Kalshi’s sports-related event contracts. “KalshiEX, LLC advertises itself as ‘the first app for legal sports betting in all 50 states,’” wrote Judge Ryan Nelson. “As the volume of activity on Kalshi’s ‘sports betting’ platform ballooned, the Nevada Gaming Control Board sent a cease-and-desist letter notifying Kalshi that it was violating Nevada statutes and gaming regulations. Kalshi sought injunctive relief, arguing that it is not a legal sports betting platform but a designated contract market under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) offering legal sports event contracts. Kalshi argues that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has exclusive regulatory authority over its sports event contracts and, therefore, Nevada’s gaming regulations do not apply.”

法官维持了地方法院的一项裁决，允许内华达州针对 Kalshi 的体育相关赛事合约执行州法律。法官 Ryan Nelson 写道：“KalshiEX, LLC 自称为‘全美 50 州首个合法体育博彩应用’。随着 Kalshi ‘体育博彩’平台上的交易量激增，内华达州博彩控制委员会发出停止令，通知 Kalshi 其违反了内华达州的法规和博彩条例。Kalshi 寻求禁令救济，辩称其并非合法的体育博彩平台，而是《商品交易法》（CEA）下指定的合约市场，提供的是合法的体育赛事合约。Kalshi 主张，商品期货交易委员会（CFTC）对其体育赛事合约拥有专属监管权，因此内华达州的博彩法规不适用。”

Sports bets aren’t swaps, judges rule

法官裁定：体育博彩并非“掉期交易”

As in other cases involving Kalshi and state gambling laws, the key legal issue is whether a sports bet on a prediction market meets the definition of a “swap” that can only be regulated by the CFTC. The 9th Circuit ruling conflicts with a 3rd Circuit decision against New Jersey, which found that sports wagers on prediction markets are swaps. The circuit split increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court will take up the issue.

与涉及 Kalshi 和州博彩法的其他案件一样，核心法律问题在于：预测市场上的体育博彩是否符合“掉期交易”（swap）的定义，从而仅受 CFTC 监管。第九巡回法院的裁决与第三巡回法院此前针对新泽西州的裁决相冲突，后者曾认定预测市场上的体育博彩属于掉期交易。这种巡回法院之间的分歧增加了最高法院介入此案的可能性。

The CFTC has been suing states that try to regulate or ban prediction markets, saying it alone has jurisdiction over them. The CEA gives the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over swaps, defined as “any agreement, contract, or transaction… that provides for any purchase, sale, payment, or delivery… that is dependent on the occurrence, nonoccurrence, or the extent of the occurrence of an event or contingency associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence.”

CFTC 一直在起诉试图监管或禁止预测市场的州，声称其对这些市场拥有唯一管辖权。《商品交易法》赋予了 CFTC 对掉期交易的专属管辖权，其定义为：“任何协议、合约或交易……涉及任何购买、销售、支付或交付……且取决于与潜在财务、经济或商业后果相关的事件或偶然事件的发生、不发生或发生程度。”

Nelson wrote that sports event contracts offered on Kalshi are sports gambling, regardless of whether Kalshi calls them swaps. Quoting Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet—“that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”—Nelson wrote that “placing sports bets, even when called by another name, is still gambling.”

Nelson 写道，无论 Kalshi 如何称呼其提供的体育赛事合约，它们本质上就是体育博彩。他引用莎士比亚《罗密欧与朱丽叶》中的名句——“玫瑰无论叫什么名字，闻起来都一样芬芳”——并写道：“进行体育博彩，即便换个名字，依然是赌博。”

The broadest reading of the legal definition of swap “might cover the sports event contracts here and thus preempt Nevada law,” but the broad reading proposed by Kalshi conflicts with the larger statutory scheme and has no limiting principle, judges wrote. “Congress has spoken on the issue of gambling in other statutes,” and did not repeal or amend those laws in the Dodd–Frank Act, which gave the CFTC authority over swaps, the ruling said.

法官们写道，对掉期交易法律定义的广义解读“或许可以涵盖此处的体育赛事合约，从而优先于内华达州法律”，但 Kalshi 提出的这种广义解读与更广泛的法律体系相冲突，且缺乏限制性原则。裁决指出：“国会在其他法规中已就博彩问题作出了规定”，且在赋予 CFTC 掉期交易监管权的《多德-弗兰克法案》中，并未废除或修订这些法律。

Nelson’s ruling was joined by Judge Bridget Bade, while Judge Kenneth Lee wrote a concurring opinion. Lee said he “agree[s] with the majority opinion that the more natural reading of ‘event’ under the statutory definition of a ‘swap’ would not include the outcome of a sporting event.”

法官 Bridget Bade 加入了 Nelson 的裁决，而法官 Kenneth Lee 则撰写了协同意见书。Lee 表示，他“同意多数意见，即在‘掉期交易’的法定定义下，对‘事件’更自然的解读不应包括体育赛事的结果。”

“Few people would describe, say, the New York Mets’ latest loss of a game as an ‘event,’” Lee 写道。“Likewise, I do not think the outcome of a typical sports game is ‘associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence’ as required under the definition of a swap. Going back to the Mets example, perhaps in an uber-technical sense a Mets’ loss could have marginal economic impact as some fans guzzle more beer to drown away their sorrows. But it seems somewhat fanciful to say that the outcome of a single game in a 162-game season is likely ‘associated’ with a ‘financial, economic, or commercial consequence’ that one would expect in a swap contract.”

“很少有人会把纽约大都会队最近输掉的一场比赛称为一个‘事件’，”Lee 写道。“同样，我不认为一场典型体育比赛的结果符合掉期交易定义中所要求的‘与潜在财务、经济或商业后果相关’。回到大都会队的例子，或许从极度技术性的角度来看，大都会队的失利可能会产生微小的经济影响，因为一些球迷会喝更多的啤酒来消愁。但若说 162 场常规赛中单场比赛的结果很可能与掉期合约中所预期的‘财务、经济或商业后果’相关，这似乎有些异想天开。”

Trump admin’s lax regulation

特朗普政府的宽松监管

The majority opinion said that CFTC regulations currently prohibit gaming contracts on prediction markets. That hasn’t stopped prediction markets from offering sports bets. Designated contract markets (DCMs) can “self-certify” to the CFTC that any new contract complies with the rules and start offering the new contract the next business day, the ruling noted. The CFTC can review the contract and disallow it later.

多数意见指出，CFTC 的现行法规禁止在预测市场上进行博彩合约交易。但这并未阻止预测市场提供体育博彩。裁决指出，指定合约市场（DCMs）可以向 CFTC “自我证明”任何新合约符合规则，并于次日开始提供该新合约。CFTC 随后可以对合约进行审查并予以否决。

The rules could change under a recent CFTC proposal that, according to a July 27 letter sent by 44 state attorneys general, defines gaming in a way that would “permit sports betting and other gambling contracts on DCMs.” The Trump administration has been favorably inclined toward prediction markets: Kalshi and Polymarket both have Donald Trump Jr. as an advisor, and Polymarket received investment from a Trump Jr.-backed venture capital firm.

根据 CFTC 最近的一项提案，规则可能会发生变化。据 44 位州总检察长在 7 月 27 日发出的一封信函称，该提案对博彩的定义方式将“允许在 DCM 上进行体育博彩和其他赌博合约交易”。特朗普政府一直对预测市场持支持态度：Kalshi 和 Polymarket 均聘请小唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump Jr.）担任顾问，且 Polymarket 获得了小特朗普支持的风险投资公司的投资。

While the CFTC hasn’t stopped Kalshi from offering sports bets, the 9th Circuit ruling said “Kalshi’s self-certification and listing of these contracts is unlawful.” The 9th Circuit criticized the 3rd Circuit ruling, stating that “our sister circuit essentially disregarded § 40.11’s prohibition on listing gaming-related transactions, when it said that the CFTC ‘has not yet acted to review or prohibit any sports-related event contracts.’” The 9th Circuit noted that federal rules will change if the CFTC adopts its proposal, but said “the existing reg

尽管 CFTC 尚未阻止 Kalshi 提供体育博彩，但第九巡回法院的裁决指出，“Kalshi 对这些合约的自我证明和上市行为是非法的。”第九巡回法院批评了第三巡回法院的裁决，称“我们的姊妹法院在表示 CFTC ‘尚未采取行动审查或禁止任何体育相关赛事合约’时，实质上忽视了第 40.11 条关于禁止列出博彩相关交易的规定。”第九巡回法院指出，如果 CFTC 采纳其提案，联邦规则将会改变，但表示“现行法规……”