纽约州起诉Kalshi非法赌博，预测市场再遇法律障碍

[music] Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio, news. This is Bloomberg Business Week Daily. Reporting from the magazine that helps global leaders stay ahead with insight on the people, companies, and trends shaping today's complex [music] economy. Plus, global business, finance, and tech news as it happens. The Bloomberg Business Week Daily podcast [music] with Carol Masser and Tim Stenbec on Bloomberg Radio.

Well, last week, New York State authorities sued the prediction markets company Kalshi for allegedly running an illegal unlicensed gambling operation in the state, marking another legal hurdle for an industry that's won support from the Trump administration.

That's right. That suit filed Friday in state court in Manhattan alleges that Kelsey's prediction market exposes state residents, including those under the legal gambling age of 21, to quote serious personal and financial risk. This is coming from the New York Attorney General, Leticia James, putting that out in a statement.

We've got with us Robert Denald, head of enforcement and legal counsel at KHI. He joins us here in the Bloomberg Business Week studio. Bobby, welcome. I want to jump right into this to this suit because Leticia James, the attorney general, says, quote, "No matter what they call themselves, prediction markets like Kalshi are gambling platforms, plain and simple, by ignoring our laws, Kali is running an illegal operation and harming New Yorkers in the process."

What is your response to this claim that Kali is running an illegal gambling operation? I mean, as both a New Yorker and a lawyer, I'm alarmed by the overreaching sentiment that's coming from the Attorney General's office. So, Khi is a licensed federally regulated exchange. By her logic, any federally regulated exchange that's operating with a federal license and overseen by a federal regulator can suddenly be subject to the whims of state criminal enforcement.

If the attorney general of a particular state wakes up and decides one day that these contracts actually come within New York state gambling law, that's not how any exchange in US history has ever operated. Right. So, we have we're here at Bloomberg. guys talk about the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ, other exchanges, all of them could be potentially affected by the breadth and scope of the New York Attorney General's uh approach and legal theory in terms of how she believes she can regulate and bring to heal federally licensed exchanges here in New York State.

Bobby, are you saying you're the exact same things as the New York Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ markets that you're saying you're the exact same thing apples to apples? Then

what I am saying is that federal law dictates that that is the case. When a federal law like the commodity exchange act exists and provides for a way for an entity to get licensed by something like the commodity futures trading commission or the securities exchange commission that lensure and that federal regulation is what governs that marketplace. Now if states want to litigate with that regulator on a case-by case basis about what types of contracts might implicate some state laws, that's one question.

And that's some of the lawsuits we've seen over the last year on sports. But this is much more farreaching. This is claiming that that license means nothing and if you don't hold a New York license, you're running a criminal operation and you need to be run out of the state. And I think it's important to ground this sort of in history of disruptive sort of new players in marketplaces, right? Ki's new, but this this sort of licensed regime has existed for many decades.

We've seen similar playbooks used against companies like Uber and Airbnb where states try to throw their weight around and bring crazy cases to block what customers want as a reasonable alternative. We think that that's pretty similar playbook to what the attorney general is following here.

So why why shouldn't Kali seek a license from the New York State Gaming Commission? Why wouldn't you do that?

So it really goes to the way that the business operates. We are a federally licensed exchange that requires us to run open markets that are available nationwide. Our users set the price. Traders set the price. We match traders in an open marketplace with one another. We are not on the other side of individuals trading. We don't run a casino where people can come in and drink and play card games. We don't run a sports book where we profit when people lose.

What we do is run open marketplaces where users define the price point. And that type of financial product, even if it touches on topics that is similar to a topic touched on by a sports book, the way that that product operates is typically what governs what regulations apply.

So even though people keep coming at you and say gambling, gambling, gambling, that's why you're not gambling.

So I think it's important to define exactly what they mean when they say gambling. To me, gambling is when you go up against the house. when you go to a place that controls whether you're going to win or lose, they're going to chase losers, they're going to maximize their ability to limit winners, they're not going to run like a true business, but where a where an exchange exists and individuals are setting price with one another.

I think that it operates under a different regulatory framework. And it's not to say that a whole paniply of different topics can be touched on by different regulated products. Right? So we see concerns in options trading or leverage trading, retail traders moving into markets that are traditionally regulated markets at the federal level. I think some of the same concerns exist for those markets. And if you read the lawsuit closely, a ton of the definitions and the language and the descriptions that Attorney General James' office uses could easily be transposed onto Robin Hood, crypto trading, derivatives trading, any sort of trading activity that the attorney general suddenly decides poses a customer threat to individuals who want to participate in.

I mean there is in in April she did sue Coinbase and Gemini for running illegal gambling platforms. There were some like why do you think Khi was singled out in this this typical or this this iteration of the lawsuit?

You'd have to ask the governor's office why you know Khi's was single singled out. I I I think the truth is there are a number of prediction markets that would be affected by this approach. There's a number of other exchanges that would be affected. There are a number of like Robin Hood's based in New York, right? Um, Novig, Poly Market, they're all based in New York. None of whom have been subject to the attorney general's focus.

So, I I don't know if that's coming. I don't know if you'd have to ask her office, but certainly, you know, we're a bit alarmed that the attorney general is seeing the scope of New York gambling law applying to potentially federal derivatives exchanges.

But I do think about exchanges. do think about the composition of the bets that are on like if we're going to use the gambling analogy that keeps getting kind of lobbied at you. I mean, if I think about exchange, there is incredible oversight, you know, and there's rules and so that there isn't, you know, trades that are happening that are not legit or fair or right, you know, if if gambling is, as you say, there is no house, right? it's just two parties figuring out something.

Where is the oversight and concern about the composition of the bets being made and making sure that they are true? Because I think that's where you're getting to gambling. If anybody can kind of put up a bet and another person can take the side and who knows if those two sides didn't get together to figure out this bet like you know what I'm saying.

So I

So that to me is where you get into the gambling. It's a little it feels a little loose.

Sure. I I don't

原文超出正文长度上限，此处截断——上游还有内容，完整版见上方「原文 ↗」。