New York wants $36 billion from Kalshi. Its CEO wants everyone to know that, in his view, the same lawsuit could just as easily be filed against Nasdaq. Four days after the state’s attorney g
New York wants $36 billion from Kalshi. Its CEO wants everyone to know that, in his view, the same lawsuit could just as easily be filed against Nasdaq. Four days after the state’s attorney general filed a civil enforcement petition against the prediction-market company, Tarek Mansour told Squawk Box that Kalshi matches buyers and sellers on federally registered contracts, not bets against its own users. Mansour argued that Kalshi matches buyers and sellers on federally registered contracts rather than booking bets against its own users.
The underlying suit, which we covered in detail on July 31, alleges Kalshi has run an unlicensed gambling business in New York since at least January 2025, in violation of the state constitution’s gambling clause, three sections of the Penal Law, two sections of the Racing Law, and the federal Wire Act, according to the verified petition. What’s new since then isn’t the legal theory – it’s how loudly, and how specifically, both sides are now arguing it in public.
Mansour’s core argument is procedural: Kalshi is a Designated Contract Market under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a federal license the CFTC reportedly granted in November 2020, and he argues that status preempts New York’s gambling statutes entirely, an argument similar to the legal issues raised after a Federal court stops Arizona crackdown on Kalshi over comparable event contracts.
Mansour also argued that:
That posture came with a procedural move of its own: Kalshi reportedly removed the case from New York state court to the Southern District of New York within hours of the petition being filed, where it’s now been assigned to Judge Analisa Torres, the same judge who denied Kalshi’s request for a preliminary injunction against New York’s gambling enforcement on July 7, and who denied a second request for an injunction pending appeal on July 27, according to the petition, as similar legal questions have also emerged in other states where a Michigan court blocks Kalshi sports betting contracts through a temporary order.
Bill Miller, CEO of the American Gaming Association, the trade group representing the U.S. casino industry, praised New York’s filing directly, saying prediction-market “evasions” of state and tribal gambling law have diverted more than $1.2 billion in gaming tax revenue nationally. That’s a notably different frame than Mansour’s “legacy incumbent” characterization: Miller is speaking as exactly the incumbent Mansour named, and he’s doing it on the record, in support of the state’s case rather than against it.
New York’s own petition, meanwhile, leans on a fact neither Mansour nor Quintenz: that Kalshi’s platform permits users age 18 to 20 to wager, three years below the state’s minimum age of 21 for mobile sports betting. It’s a specific, checkable allegation, separate from the broader federal-preemption fight, and one the company’s public defense so far has left unanswered.
Mansour also made a financial claim on air that’s worth separating from the rest of his argument: he said New Yorkers have collectively made more than $200 million on Kalshi in 2026, contrasting that figure with a claim that New Yorkers lost a comparable amount betting with traditional sportsbooks.
Whatever ground either side is winning in the court of public opinion, the actual legal question, whether Kalshi’s contracts are federally protected derivatives or state-regulable gambling. That question still sits with the same Second Circuit panel that denied Kalshi’s request for administrative relief in late July. Until that panel rules, New York’s new suit, Kalshi’s federal removal, and every statement made on cable news this week are all arguments being made in advance of a decision nobody involved has actually won yet.
1. Has any court ruled on the merits since the July 31 filing? No. The Second Circuit panel that denied Kalshi’s request for administrative relief in late July still hasn’t ruled on the underlying appeal, and no court has yet decided whether Kalshi’s contracts are federally protected derivatives or state-regulable gambling.
2. Why did Kalshi move the case to federal court? Kalshi’s central legal argument is that its CFTC registration preempts state gambling law; moving the case to the Southern District of New York puts that argument in front of a federal judge already handling Kalshi’s related federal case, rather than a state court.
