USD
Kalshi Denies CFTC Probe as Gaming States Press Supreme Court Case
Trading patterns draw scrutiny while state lawmakers challenge federal control of sports event contracts
TL;DR
- Kalshi said it had not been contacted by the CFTC and did not believe it faced a formal examination over unusual trading patterns in its bitcoin and ether perpetual markets.
- Trading data showed repeated transaction sizes, including nearly 1 million similar ether trades and heavy concentration around exact dollar amounts that Kalshi attributed to liquidity incentives.
- Gaming-state lawmakers separately urged the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a dispute over whether states can regulate Kalshi’s sports event contracts as gambling.
Trade smarter on Jupiter, Solana’s leading DEX built for fast execution and deep liquidity.
Swap tokens at competitive rates, route across multiple liquidity sources automatically, and access perpetuals, DCA, and advanced trading tools — all in one place!
Kalshi said on September 23, 2026, that it had not been contacted by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and did not believe it was under formal examination over unusual trading activity, even as trading data in its bitcoin and ether perpetual markets drew scrutiny and state gaming lawmakers separately pushed the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a jurisdictional fight over its sports event contracts.
Kalshi spokesperson Elisabeth Diana said, “We have not been contacted by the CFTC and don't believe there is any formal examination.” She added, “As we’ve said, these data patterns are typical of liquidity incentive programs and common in financial markets.”
The trading questions centered on repeated transaction sizes in Kalshi’s perpetual markets. Many ether trades clustered at exactly $5,500, while bitcoin perpetual trades frequently appeared around approximately $2,500 or $5,000. Nearly 1 million ether-market trades were placed in similar amounts.
Beni, a co-founder of research firm Stealth Neolab, said the figures came from Kalshi’s public API. Kalshi attributed the repetitive transaction patterns to its liquidity incentive program, which rewards participation intended to supply liquidity to its markets.
Diana said Kalshi routinely sends trading information to the regulator. “We send our data every day to them [the CFTC], and it's not that weird for them to sort of review our data on the regular.” A separate account said the CFTC was reviewing trading information before deciding whether to open an enforcement investigation, making the distinction between preliminary data review and a formal enforcement case central to Kalshi’s response.
Questions also focused on whether the trading activity could involve wash trading or self-trading. Diana said Kalshi has “tons of tools” and a “full surveillance team in place.” Responding to broader speculation, she said, “Don’t believe everything you read on X.” She added, “A lot of the discourse was rumors seeded by competitors.”
Gaming-State Lawmakers Ask Supreme Court to Hear Kalshi Dispute
A separate legal challenge intensified the same day when the National Council of Legislators from Gaming States filed an amicus curiae brief supporting New Jersey officials seeking Supreme Court review of whether states can apply gambling laws to Kalshi’s sports event contracts.
New Jersey’s Attorney General and state gaming authorities filed their petition for a writ of certiorari on September 2, 2026, following litigation involving Kalshi and a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The dispute centers on whether sports-linked event contracts offered through a federally regulated derivatives market fall solely under CFTC authority or can also be regulated under state gaming laws.
The National Council of Legislators from Gaming States warned that accepting Kalshi’s position could “[render] states powerless” to regulate sports betting through prediction-market structures and create “substantial harm and confusion.” The group argued that “gaming-related matters” should remain within state authority.
The lawmakers also warned that a ruling favoring broad federal preemption could influence traditional gambling businesses. “If Kalshi’s self-described ‘sports betting’ activities are deemed beyond state regulation, then casinos, pari-mutuel operators, and other heavily regulated entities are certain to amend their business and products to seek the same status.”
They added, “Entire state regulatory regimes surrounding this vice activity will have to be reconsidered in light of any preemption found in this area.”
The National Council of Legislators from Gaming States did not address the competing argument that event contracts traded on federally regulated markets fall within the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction. Kalshi has argued against being subject to separate state regulatory systems.
After New Jersey filed its petition, a Kalshi spokesperson said the company could not be “regulated by 50 different regulators.” Kalshi has until November 9, 2026, to file its response in the Supreme Court proceeding.
This article has been refined and enhanced by ChatGPT.
