When a firm like Kalshi, operating as a federally-regulated Designated Contract Market (DCM), faces lawsuits from state gaming commissions, the core issue is a fundamental concept in U.S. law: Federal Preemption.
For any FinTech or derivatives platform operating across state lines, understanding where federal authority—specifically the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction—ends and state authority begins is crucial for regulatory compliance and successful litigation strategy.
Understanding the Three Tiers of Regulatory Authority
Different financial products and activities fall under distinct jurisdictional frameworks:
- Full Federal Preemption (Exclusive): In these areas, the federal government intends to have total control, with no state involvement. Examples include military affairs, immigration, and aviation licensing.
- Co-Authority (Shared Jurisdiction): Here, federal regulation co-exists with state oversight. Securities regulation is the classic example: the SEC regulates at the federal level, but states also enforce their own Blue Sky Laws with specific requirements for selling securities.
- Traditional Commodity Derivatives (CFTC Exclusive): Historically, the trading of commodities derivatives and futures contracts on CFTC-regulated exchanges was viewed as an area of near-total federal preemption. The original statute intended for the CFTC to have exclusive jurisdiction over these products. This is a powerful shield, demonstrated by case law where the courts ruled that if any part of a contract looked like a futures contract, the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction applied, even if it was listed on a securities exchange.
The Dodd-Frank Act and the Rise of the Jurisdictional Gap
The rules for swaps changed after the 2008 Financial Crisis with the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act.
- Dodd-Frank divided jurisdiction over swaps between the SEC and the CFTC, creating the categories of security-based swaps, other swaps, and mixed swaps (where both agencies have jurisdiction).
- Critically, when drafting the sections concerning swaps, Congress did not use the same language granting the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction that was used for traditional futures contracts.
This gap is precisely what state gaming commissions are exploiting against prediction market firms like Kalshi and Polymarket.
The States’ Argument Against Federal Preemption
State authorities, armed with a long history of regulating gambling within the U.S., are making two key arguments in court:
- Lack of Statutory Preemption: They argue that because the Dodd-Frank language for swaps does not explicitly preempt states, their authority to regulate gambling remains intact.
- No Legitimate Business Purpose: The states contend that these federally-licensed contracts are, in substance, gambling operations. They argue that a federal license should not be used to bypass long-established state laws against betting on outcomes like a roulette spin or a blackjack hand.
Key Takeaway for Businesses: Litigation Strategy
The lawsuits currently underway are far from over . What some news outlets report as a “win” or “loss” for the firms are often just procedural battles, such as the fight over a preliminary injunction.
- A firm that wins the preliminary injunction (as Kalshi did in two states) is allowed to keep operating their contracts while the case proceeds to trial and final ruling.
- A firm that loses but still continues operating (as occurred in Maryland) suggests that complex, confidential agreements may be taking place behind the scenes—perhaps involving tax collection or steps toward state registration—to allow the market to continue while the core legal issue plays out.
Navigating these state-federal disputes requires a highly specialized legal strategy that addresses both the history of the CEA and the specifics of the Dodd-Frank framework.
As a former CFTC lawyer, I provide expert counsel on the boundaries of exclusive jurisdiction, derivatives regulation, and state-federal preemption battles for firms in the FinTech, futures, and prediction market sectors. If your product is facing a jurisdictional challenge or you require proactive regulatory strategy, contact me for consultation.
Related Video: Kalshi vs. States: Federal Law vs. Sports Betting Licenses Former CFTC Lawyer Explains