Kalshi loses again as judges rule prediction markets must obey gambling laws
Kalshi loses again as judges rule prediction markets must obey gambling laws
Kalshi 再遭败诉：法官裁定预测市场必须遵守博彩法
Another federal appeals court has ruled that states can enforce their gambling laws against the prediction market Kalshi, which asserts that it can only be regulated by the US government. On Friday, a three-judge panel in the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled unanimously against Kalshi and in favor of Ohio and Tennessee.
另一家联邦上诉法院裁定，各州有权对预测市场 Kalshi 执行其博彩法。Kalshi 此前声称，其业务仅受美国联邦政府监管。周五，美国第六巡回上诉法院的三名法官小组一致作出裁决，支持俄亥俄州和田纳西州，驳回了 Kalshi 的诉求。
While the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over “swaps,” the judges found that sports wagers offered on Kalshi do not meet the legal definition of swaps. Moreover, the court found that even if Kalshi wagers were swaps, the regulatory scheme created by Congress would not prohibit states from enforcing gambling laws on prediction markets.
尽管美国商品期货交易委员会（CFTC）对“掉期合约”（swaps）拥有专属管辖权，但法官认为 Kalshi 提供的体育博彩并不符合掉期合约的法律定义。此外，法院还指出，即使 Kalshi 的博彩属于掉期合约，国会制定的监管框架也不会禁止各州在预测市场上执行博彩法。
“We hold that Kalshi has not shown that its sports-event contracts satisfy the statutory definition of a ‘swap’ so as to fall within the scope of the CFTC’s ‘exclusive jurisdiction,’” said the ruling written by Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, a George W. Bush appointee. “And, even assuming that Kalshi’s sports-event contracts are swaps, we alternatively hold that the CEA [Commodity Exchange Act] neither expressly nor impliedly preempts Ohio’s or Tennessee’s gambling laws.”
“我们裁定，Kalshi 未能证明其体育赛事合约符合‘掉期合约’的法定定义，从而无法将其纳入 CFTC 的‘专属管辖权’范围，”由乔治·W·布什任命的朱莉娅·史密斯·吉本斯（Julia Smith Gibbons）法官在裁决书中写道。“而且，即使假设 Kalshi 的体育赛事合约属于掉期合约，我们认为《商品交易法》（CEA）既没有明示也没有暗示要优先于俄亥俄州或田纳西州的博彩法。”
Kalshi sued Ohio and Tennessee after gambling regulators in each state indicated they would bring enforcement actions against the prediction market. The appeals court ruling on Friday upheld an Ohio district court decision against Kalshi and vacated a Tennessee district court order that went in favor of Kalshi.
在俄亥俄州和田纳西州的博彩监管机构表示将对该预测市场采取执法行动后，Kalshi 对这两个州提起了诉讼。周五的上诉法院裁决维持了俄亥俄州地方法院对 Kalshi 不利的判决，并撤销了田纳西州地方法院此前支持 Kalshi 的裁定。
Many states are trying to stop or restrict gambling on Kalshi, which offers sports betting throughout the US despite not obtaining state gambling licenses or paying state gambling taxes. Kalshi offers sports bets in some states where gambling on sports is entirely illegal and in other states where the law has restrictions on betting that Kalshi does not follow.
许多州正试图阻止或限制在 Kalshi 上的博彩行为。尽管 Kalshi 未获得州博彩牌照也未缴纳州博彩税，但它仍在全美范围内提供体育博彩。Kalshi 在一些体育博彩完全违法的州，以及在法律对博彩有限制但 Kalshi 未遵守的州，均开展了体育博彩业务。
“Kalshi’s contracts fall within the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction,” Kalshi told the Sixth Circuit. The CFTC backed Kalshi in an amicus brief and has separately sued nine states in lawsuits that allege the states are infringing on the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction.
“Kalshi 的合约属于 CFTC 的专属管辖范围，”Kalshi 向第六巡回法院表示。CFTC 在一份法庭之友陈述书中支持了 Kalshi，并已分别起诉了九个州，指控这些州侵犯了 CFTC 的专属管辖权。
State governments now have two major victories to Kalshi’s one
州政府目前以两胜一负领先 Kalshi
The Sixth Circuit was the third federal appeals court to rule on whether states can regulate gambling on Kalshi. There was already a circuit split, as Kalshi scored a victory in a Third Circuit ruling involving New Jersey and lost a Ninth Circuit case involving Nevada. State governments now have two major victories to Kalshi’s one, and a Fourth Circuit case involving Maryland is still pending. New Jersey recently asked the Supreme Court to settle the matter for the whole country.
第六巡回法院是第三个就各州是否有权监管 Kalshi 博彩业务作出裁决的联邦上诉法院。此前各巡回法院之间已存在分歧：Kalshi 在涉及新泽西州的第三巡回法院裁决中获胜，但在涉及内华达州的第九巡回法院案件中败诉。目前，州政府以两场重大胜利领先于 Kalshi 的一场，而涉及马里兰州的第四巡回法院案件仍在审理中。新泽西州最近已请求最高法院对此事进行全国性的最终裁决。
Under US law, swaps include contracts that are dependent on events “associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence.” Whether a sporting event has such a consequence is one of the key questions courts have been trying to answer.
根据美国法律，掉期合约包括那些依赖于“与潜在财务、经济或商业后果相关”事件的合约。体育赛事是否具有此类后果，是法院一直试图回答的关键问题之一。
The Sixth Circuit judges decided that “for an ‘event’ to be ‘associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence,’ the event must be intrinsically associated with a financial consequence such that we can reasonably understand why hedging financial risk or ascertaining pricing information for the occurrence of that event would be desired and beneficial (e.g., a change in interest rates).”
第六巡回法院的法官们裁定：“一个‘事件’若要‘与潜在的财务、经济或商业后果相关’，该事件必须与财务后果有内在联系，以至于我们可以合理理解为什么对该事件的发生进行财务风险对冲或确定定价信息是有需求且有益的（例如，利率的变化）。”
Kalshi’s sports-event contracts are not swaps because, unlike “contracts based on financial values or instruments (e.g., interest rates or stock prices), Kalshi’s sports-event contracts have only downstream economic consequences, assuming they have the potential to cause economic consequences at all,” the court said.
法院表示，Kalshi 的体育赛事合约不属于掉期合约，因为与“基于财务价值或工具（如利率或股票价格）的合约不同，Kalshi 的体育赛事合约仅具有下游的经济后果，前提是它们确实有潜力产生经济后果的话。”
“Congress did not expressly preempt state gaming law”
“国会并未明示优先于州博彩法”
The court additionally ruled that Congress did not preempt all state regulation over designated contract markets (DCMs) such as Kalshi. US law says the CFTC may prohibit DCMs from listing event contracts that involve an “activity that is unlawful under any Federal or State law.” This language “necessarily implies that certain event contracts may be listed in some states but not in others,” Sixth Circuit judges found.
法院还裁定，国会并未优先于所有针对指定合约市场（DCM，如 Kalshi）的州监管。美国法律规定，CFTC 可以禁止 DCM 上架涉及“根据任何联邦或州法律属于非法活动”的事件合约。第六巡回法院的法官们认为，这一表述“必然意味着某些事件合约可能在某些州可以上架，而在其他州则不行。”
Federal law has generally deferred to states on gambling, and Congress did not include an express preemption provision that would override state gambling laws, the court said. Congress specifically preempted state laws in some sections of the CEA, but not in the section outlining the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over swaps, the court said.
法院指出，联邦法律在博彩问题上通常尊重各州的自主权，且国会并未包含任何可以凌驾于州博彩法之上的明示优先条款。法院表示，国会在《商品交易法》（CEA）的某些章节中明确优先于州法律，但在概述 CFTC 对掉期合约拥有专属管辖权的章节中并未这样做。
“These provisions underscore that Congress did not expressly preempt state gaming law in § 2(a), because Congress knew how to draft an express preemption provision but chose not to there,” the court said.
“这些条款强调了国会并未在第 2(a) 节中明示优先于州博彩法，因为国会知道如何起草明示优先条款，但选择不在该处使用，”法院表示。
The state laws that are preempted by the CEA relate to licensing and operation of DCMs, Sixth Circuit judges concluded: The “patchwork of state regulations” that Congress sought to preempt includes only those that directly target the licensing and operation of DCMs, not ancillary laws that may incidentally burden contracts relating to a subject matter traditionally within the field of state control.
第六巡回法院的法官们总结道，被《商品交易法》优先排除的州法律仅限于与 DCM 许可和运营相关的法律：“国会试图优先排除的‘州监管拼凑’仅包括那些直接针对 DCM 许可和运营的法律，而不包括那些可能附带性地给传统上属于州控制领域的合约带来负担的辅助性法律。”
As discussed above, the States’ gaming laws do not directly target the licensing and operation of DCMs. They are thus not the sorts of laws that Congress sought to preempt, and their application to Kalshi does not subvert Congress’s goals. State gambling laws do not directly regulate the general licensure and operations of prediction markets, and the laws’ effects “are felt only because DCMs like Kalshi have decided to offer event contracts that ‘are virtually indistinguishable from’ sports bets,” the court said.
如上所述，各州的博彩法并不直接针对 DCM 的许可和运营。因此，它们不属于国会试图优先排除的法律类型，其对 Kalshi 的适用也不会颠覆国会的目标。法院表示，州博彩法并不直接监管预测市场的一般许可和运营，这些法律的影响“之所以显现，仅仅是因为像 Kalshi 这样的 DCM 决定提供与体育博彩‘几乎无法区分’的事件合约。”
Kalshi claims court rulings prove state laws don’t work
Kalshi 声称法院裁决证明州法律行不通
In a statement it provided to Ars, Kalshi criticized the ruling. “We disagree with this decision and don’t believe it will survive further review,” Kalshi said. “The law does not require a swap to involve ‘intrinsic’ fin…
在提供给 Ars 的一份声明中，Kalshi 对该裁决表示批评。“我们不同意这一决定，也不认为它能在进一步的审查中站得住脚，”Kalshi 表示。“法律并不要求掉期合约必须涉及‘内在的’财务……”