NextFin News - Gary Gensler told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on June 12 that Kalshi’s sports prediction contracts are not swaps. His filing, submitted with tribal groups, gaming-industry organizations and Better Markets, says sports bets are built for amusement, not for hedging economic risk.
This is not about word choice — it is about jurisdiction. If sports contracts fit inside the federal swaps regime, Kalshi can argue that a CFTC-regulated venue should not be second-guessed by state gaming regulators after the fact. If they do not, the business shifts back toward gambling law, where states and tribal authorities have far more control over licensing, consumer protection and enforcement.
Gensler’s argument is statutory, but its commercial effect is broader. He says Congress defined a swap around financial, economic or commercial consequences, and that sports outcomes do not meet that test. In the filing cited by Bloomberg, he says “sports-related event contracts” are not swaps because they are not designed to hedge risk in the way Dodd-Frank intended, and the brief adds that the CFTC’s newer hedging theories are only tenuously connected to commercial risk. On the surface this looks like a legal classification fight; the real issue is whether prediction markets can keep expanding by wrapping wagers in derivatives terminology.
Kalshi’s counterargument is straightforward and, so far, not trivial. A federal court in Tennessee sided with Kalshi in February, saying its sports contracts were likely swaps subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction, while state-level actions elsewhere have moved the other way. Massachusetts, Nevada and Ohio have all become battlegrounds. What changed is not just the volume of litigation but the operating model: a contract approved in one venue can still face pressure elsewhere, which raises compliance costs and makes scale harder for any platform that needs legal certainty to attract volume.
The pressure points are now clear. Kalshi, Polymarket and venture backer Andreessen Horowitz benefit if sole CFTC oversight holds because federal preemption would give event-contract platforms one principal rulebook and a stronger claim to national distribution. Tribal groups, the American Gaming Association and state gaming officials benefit if Gensler’s reading wins because it keeps sports event contracts inside gambling law and preserves local enforcement power. The real trade-off is not innovation versus tradition; it is whether oversight should prioritize financial-market access or gambling-style controls over consumer harm, insider trading concerns and market manipulation. Whether Kalshi’s logic works depends on whether courts accept that a sports contract listed on a regulated exchange is economically different from a bet placed anywhere else.
Gensler’s filing lands while the CFTC is also collecting public comments on prediction markets and related safeguards, with more than 3,000 submissions reported earlier this year on prohibited contracts, insider trading and regulatory authority. That parallel process matters because courts may settle jurisdiction more slowly than the regulator can reshape the category. The math does not add up yet for firms that want to treat these products like ordinary financial contracts while the legal status still changes by forum. Gensler is not a sitting regulator, and his filing does not erase rulings that have favored Kalshi, but it does sharpen one point: the case is no longer just about whether prediction markets are popular. It is about who bears the authority to say where finance ends and sports betting begins, and the Sixth Circuit still has no final answer.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
