Rubbish Check
CNBC Finance · September 25, 2026
source“Appeals court rules that states can regulate Kalshi’s sports prediction markets, dealing another legal blow to platforms”
R2/ 10
Lightly altered
Rubbish Rating — 1 = base fact, 10 = pure rubbish
12345678910
In short
Rubbish Talk rates CNBC's claim that the 6th Circuit let Ohio and Tennessee regulate Kalshi's sports contracts a 2/10 because the ruling, its unanimity, and the "second appellate loss" framing all check out against the opinion and rival coverage.
The Verdict
Lightly altered, essentially base fact. The headline compresses a two-part legal holding into one clean sentence, but every load-bearing word, "states can regulate," "another legal blow," "platforms" plural, is directly supported by the ruling and the wider industry context. The only iteration away from pure 1 is that "platforms" generalizes a decision that legally binds only Kalshi in Ohio and Tennessee, even though the reasoning does threaten the broader industry.
What actually happened
A unanimous three-judge panel on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that states have a right to regulate sports-related event contracts on prediction market platforms, marking a second major legal defeat for the industry as a fight at the U.S. Supreme Court looms. The panel held that Kalshi has not shown that its sports-event contracts satisfy the statutory definition of a 'swap' so as to fall within the scope of the CFTC's 'exclusive jurisdiction'. It also added a fallback holding: even treating the contracts as swaps, the CEA neither expressly nor impliedly preempts Ohio's or Tennessee's gambling laws.
Key facts
- Ruling: 6th Circuit upheld Ohio's win in a lower court and vacated an injunction Kalshi had secured against Tennessee.
- Panel: unanimous, three judges, Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons writing, joined by Judges Eric L. Clay and Rachel S. Bloomekatz.
- Circuit split: the 6th Circuit joins the 3rd and 9th Circuits in rejecting federal preemption, though the 3rd Circuit actually sided with Kalshi, so the industry sits at one win, two losses on the appellate scoreboard.
- Prior score: the panel pointed to Kalshi's own concession in earlier litigation that its sports event contracts have 'no inherent economic significance,' leaving Kalshi 1-for-3 in the circuit decisions.
- Next step: New Jersey has already petitioned the Supreme Court, and Crypto.com and Robinhood have separately urged the Court to take up the broader federal-state question involving sports event contracts.
What to watch for
Watch whether the Supreme Court grants cert on New Jersey's petition, since a circuit split this direct (2-1 against federal preemption) is exactly the kind of conflict SCOTUS typically resolves. Also watch the remanded Tennessee case at the district court, and whether Kalshi pulls sports contracts from Ohio and Tennessee before that plays out.
About this scoreThe R-Score is Rubbish Talk's editorial opinion on how far a headline's framing sits from what the underlying facts support. It is a judgement about presentation and emphasis, not an allegation that any outlet has acted dishonestly. Every figure we rely on is linked under Receipts so you can check it yourself.
