Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
A daily podcast delving into the biggest stories of the day throughout the sports betting and igaming sector.
Charlie Horner (00:02.188)
New Jersey's Attorney General Jennifer Davenport has filed for Sir Shirai to ask the Supreme Court of the United States whether prediction market sports contracts are legal or violate state sports betting laws. It's a hotly anticipated case which could make or break a multi-billion dollar sector andor reshape the online gambling sector in the United States. So is Judgment Day on the horizon for prediction markets? And how will this saga end?
Welcome back to iGaming Daily supported by Optimove, the creator of Position Positionless. Welcome back to iGaming Daily supported by Optimove, the creator of positionless marketing and the number one player engagement solution for sports betting and iGaming operators. I'm Charlie Horner, and to discuss all of this with me today is SBC America's news editor, Tom Nightingale. Tom, it's the one we've been waiting for. it's a big one today. How how are you doing?
Tom Nightingale (01:00.361)
Yeah, I'm very well, thank you. Yeah, I mean this is I should I I feel like I should put a disclaimer at the start of this podcast just to confirm that neither of us, well I don't want to speak for you, Charlie, but neither of us are lawyers, neither of us are prediction markets, at related attorneys. So don't take this podcast as direct legal advice. but yeah, it's a big it's a big it is a big development.
Like we'll get into it. It doesn't necessarily mean that well, I mean, it doesn't mean that all of a sudden, like, next month this is gonna be before the Supreme Court. Do you know what I mean? There is still a there's definitely still a ways to go yet. But it's undeniably a a h a huge step. I think we've been hearing for at least I think like twelve months now, honestly, that this is going to be destined for the Supreme Court. and so an official petition to the Supreme Court to take the case is isn't is naturally a a big leap towards that seemingly inevitable outcome.
Charlie Horner (01:57.186)
Yeah, it seems like a huge, huge milestone in this in this case. And and it and and you know, we've been doing this podcast for what the best part of three and a half years now. And yeah, we never have to stop mentioning that we are not lawyers. Particularly on the US side of the of the industry. There's a lot of a lot of court cases over there. but let's let's dive into this, Tom, because it is a a big story as as we say. So Scotus has finally been asked to look at
Tom Nightingale (02:12.659)
Yeah.
Charlie Horner (02:24.877)
prediction market sports contracts. so it it it was from New Jersey's Attorney General. tell us what what the story is here. What why has it come to this?
Tom Nightingale (02:36.875)
yeah, how long have you got? I mean, yeah, I think you summed it up nicely. You could put that as a d as a as a line at the start of every Production Markets podcast and story that we write. A lot of court cases, as you said. th I mean, New Jersey, it's notable for a start for New Jersey that it's for for for at least two reasons. One being that I mean, w I'm sure we'll mention Pasper at some point, the
you know, the the the law that was repealed that led to state regulated online sports betting in the US. That was also New Jersey, you know, in 2018. and the fact that it's New Jersey here is, you know, New Jersey's gaming regulator was one of the very first in the US to sort of take the fight to prediction markets really over their sports contracts. They sent s they sent a cease and desist letter to Calci, as well as to Robin Hood, like a part who are an another firm after prediction markets, a partner of Calci.
They sent New Jersey sent those letters in March 2025. So, you know, you're looking at an eighteen month timeline from when New Jersey first sort of tried to force the issue. And then from there, you know, like brief overview, a dis a a federal court judge granted Calci a temporary injunction, which allowed them to continue offering sports in New Jersey. New Jersey appealed that decision, blah, a bit of back and forth. And that's what ultimately led to the Third Circuit. So in the US, you have the sort of a federal
You have the federal district court level, and then if stuff gets appealed, you know, and it goes that it and certain criteria are met, it goes up to the circuit court level, which is basically federal appeals court. each circuit court covers several states. New Jersey's in the third circuit. The third circuit actually heard arguments earlier this year, I can't remember exactly when, and issued a two to one decision in favour of Calchi.
New Jersey had a deadline, I believe, of Thursday, September third, to petition this you know, to file their petition to the Supreme Court to take the, you know, to try and to take up the case, based on the Third Circuit decision and everything that came before that. And notably, you know, just but a few days before that deadline expired, the n another s appeals court, the Ninth Circuit, issued a three to zero decision against Calci.
Tom Nightingale (04:53.619)
in favor of the state of Nevada. that created a circuit court split, which we've heard, I've heard numerous times from actual legal experts, unlike us, that a federal, you know, an appeals court split is one of the biggest reasons that a Supreme Court kind of eventually has to step in and make a firm ruling. So I think once that once that Ninth Circuit opinion that contra you know
con contradicted or conflicted with the third circuit opinion. Once that ninth circuit opinion came in, New Jersey then have an even stronger argument, right? To go to SCOTUS and say, look, you we need you to step in and and and sort this out. so it's a bit of an all road all roads lead to Rome situation, I think. Like this was going to get to the Supreme Court one way or another. Again, I should clarify it it has not reached the Supreme Court yet. Like they still have to decide to take
this case, they could feasibly say, no, we don't want to take it right now, knowing that there are a bunch of other lawsuits going on in other courts around the country, including other circuit courts. They could wait for, you know, more decisions and more evidence and that sort of stuff. or they might just say, you know, well, this is clearly the direction of travel. let's let's take it now and and, you know, work on it and issue an ultimate decision. So I mean we'll we'll we'll see. There could still be a could still be
Charlie Horner (06:12.109)
Sure.
Tom Nightingale (06:14.695)
mm a long time to go, I think, before certainly before it actually gets resolved.
Charlie Horner (06:18.827)
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Well, you've done a really good job there of explaining the you know the the differences between the third and the ninth courts there, Tom. and there is a bit of a chasm in terms of those those two decisions. Maybe could you take us inside what those what those decisions look like and why there's there is a split and I I I guess it it goes to show that there is that you know, this is complicated. This is complicated stuff, right? And the y you could
Y you can read a case in in completely different ways, even though you're reading the exact same document and the exact same arguments.
Tom Nightingale (06:53.833)
Yeah, I mean like at the absolute high level and being very, very brief about it, the third circuit decision that went two to one in favour of Calci essentially held that sports bets, sports trades, you know, what what jargon are we using now? qualify as what we call what what the Commodity Exchange Act calls swaps. So that's like a sort of th these derivatives contract, you know, event contracts or whatever.
The Third Circuit held that sports bets kind of qualify as swaps under the CEA because they are traded on a Commodity Futures Trading Commission licensed exchange like Calci, and they depend on of like outcomes of events that are associated with economic consequences, I think is generally the the the sort of high-level overview of it. So the third circuit basically said, Yeah, we see, you know, we can we can believe that sports trading qualifies as sort of a financial
you know, instrument because there are economic consequences involved, blah blah blah. this has been like a huge argument in all of the court cases, right? Like are does sports does this does the Commodity Exchange Act allow for sort of sports to be categorized with the rest of federal, you know, financial contracts and that sort of stuff. the Ninth Circuit basically directly con c contradicted that opinion. they ba I think the Ninth Circuit basically said that
An interesting point was that, you know, adopting that reading where you say that sports, you know, the CEA does allow for sports trading at a federal level, would of essentially sort of seem to give the CFTC regulatory authority over all sports betting nationwide, which is directly sort of well, the argument is that it's directly contradictory to we've already mentioned PASPA, right? That
The repeal of PASPA gave states, explicitly gave states the authority to regulate sports betting and gaming and do, you know, roll out their own roll out their own regulatory regimes and legalisation, that's what likes in the power of states. So the fundamental issue is whether the CFTC's federal authority A includes sports and B like supersedes or preempts state gaming authority.
Tom Nightingale (09:09.223)
It was interesting, you know, there was a line, I think it was in the Ninth Circuit decision where it's like, you know, the the ar Calci's argument, essentially, you know, by accepting Calci's argument and the CFTC's argument that sports is allowed, that would suggest that Congress, I think the quote was, hid an elephant in a mouse hole. We see a lot of different phrases to describe stuff. It's very, you know, the the the the biggest one is if it if it if it quacks, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's it's a duck, right? If it looks like sports betting, it is sports betting. I saw one recently, I saw somebody recently describe
you know, sports event contracts as putting alcohol in a juice box and calling it juice. you know, there's a lot of different sort of, you know, terminology out there. But this is the crux of the argument and the fact the core fact of the matter that's important is that the Third Circuit and the Ninth Circuit pretty much disagree on most, if not all, fundamental aspects of the case, you know, which is why it really strengthens the argument that it may be time for the Supreme Court to step in and
Charlie Horner (09:42.029)
Mm-hmm.
Tom Nightingale (10:06.453)
take a firm hand, right, based on the evidence available to them from all these different courts.
Charlie Horner (10:11.149)
Yeah, it's certainly a a tricky spot for for everyone to be in at this point. one clarifying question I've got, Tom, before we move on is so the third and the ninth courts contradict each other and there is a split. D d does either of those courts have jurisdiction over the other in terms of the hierarchy, or do they have are they on an even keel and that's why the case is being it or there's a petition for the case to go to the Supreme Court?
Tom Nightingale (10:41.247)
My understanding is that they're on an even keel. I mean, each e each circuit court, as I mentioned earlier, like we we've we've elevated from the district court level where each state has its own sometimes more than one because you have, you know, different districts within a state, but but each state has its own federal court and then each circuit court covers several states. I think the n I I might be getting things confused here. I think the Ninth Circuit covers nine states, one of which is Nevada.
Which like New Jersey was one of the very first states to say, hey, wait a second, you're offering sports betting without a license. so I th I but I think, you know, my understanding is that they're on the same level. I certainly don't think that one has more sort of authority over the other. Okay, they might differ in the number of states that they represent, but you know, once you have a circuit split, you do sort of, you know, I I
my non-legal expert mind looks at that and says, well, how how do you resolve a circuit court split without going to the Supreme Court at some point, right? so and I just think it's worth mentioning as well that like w on the topic of it going to to the Supreme Court, like, it's very important to know that while prediction markets are, you know, in mainstream media, we've talked about this Charlie on podcast before, like in mainstream media a lot of the conversation focuses on things like insider trading, political markets,
Can you bet on wildfires and all this sort of stuff? I think it's an important clarification to note that this petition from New Jersey to the Supreme Court very specifically focuses on the question of whether sports event contracts should be allowed. So this is the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court takes up New Jersey's sir and and takes the case based on New Jersey's petition.
it will be purely focused on whether or not sports event contracts qualify as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act, whether the CFTC's federal regulation overrides state gaming regulations in terms of offering a sports contract nationwide, like you know, other issues around prediction markets would remain. it wouldn't touch things like, you know, can you bet on elections and all this sort of stuff. It's just the sports question that we're that New Jersey is asking.
Charlie Horner (12:54.507)
Yeah, an important clarification to make. And I think it's interesting because while those political events and conflict and, you know, the allegations of insider trading are all really interesting lines from a from a headline perspective. And it you know, it it reads really well in an article or it does really well on TV news. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of volume on on Calci and the like is on sports contracts and so
Tom Nightingale (13:22.858)
Yeah.
Charlie Horner (13:23.445)
it it you know, it it makes a lot of sense that it's sports, particularly within the context of s you know, the states were supposed to have jurisdiction of of sports betting laws. So it it makes a lot of sense that it that the the Supreme Court would would just be ruling on on that. before we go to a break though, Tom, we know that there's no guarantee that SCOTUS will actually hear the case. but what does the path look like to to that and what options
Tom Nightingale (13:32.459)
Yeah.
Charlie Horner (13:50.775)
Does the Supreme Court have to either take the case or to not to take the case?
Tom Nightingale (13:57.268)
Yeah, well I mean we we we sort of touched on this a little bit earlier. My understanding and I've seen I have seen analysis from, you know, as I'll say again, actual gaming lawyers rather than gaming industry journalists. they could decide to take it, because obviously the issue, you know, a a a a a circuit split is pretty big. And this is like, you know, I mean we're in our gaming industry bubble, but this is a pretty massive issue. Like you're essentially asking the question of whether sports betting can become
federally regulated and, you know, a platform like CALCI or anybody really could just, you know, if the Supreme Court takes this case and says, actually what CALCI is doing is fine, we think the CFTC does have exclusive jurisdiction or whatever, it fundamentally and completely changes the landscape because it means that companies can just register with the CFTC, offer sports contracts that are as long as they're approved by the CFTC, they don't have to bother with state gaming regulations and all this. It like completely
would unravel the patchwork of state regulation and laws that has been built over the eight years since nine years no, sorry, seven years since PASPA was repealed. that's a huge question, right? So does SCOTUS come in and take it now or do that does does the court decide, well, okay, we've got a circuit split at the moment, but we know that, for example, we've talked about the third the third and the ninth circuits rulings come out already. The Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments a couple of months ago, but has not
issued a decision yet? Do you wait? Because obviously that then, based on what the Sixth Circuit decides, you've then got one way or another, you have multiple circuit courts leaning in a certain direction, whereas at the moment it's a one-one split. You know, do you wait for more information to come out? do you wait to see how, you know, the C w one thing we haven't touched on, I won't go into it, but like don't forget that the CFTC is currently in the process of working on rulemaking.
for prediction markets. You know, if you're the s you're if you're the Supreme Court, do you wait and see, wait for the final outcome of that? Do you wait for like finalized regulations for prediction markets to be published by the federal regulator? Take that into account. You know, there's an argument that would suggest that the longer you wait before you take it, the more information Scotus has. But the counter argument to that that's pretty compelling is that well at the moment like everything's kind of in turmoil. Everything's kind of up in the air.
Tom Nightingale (16:17.171)
and you have two very conflicting models that are butting heads and every it's kind of open season at the moment, right? So in terms of the solid next step, as far as I know, I think Cal she has Calci gets to file an an an opposition brief, like opposing New Jersey's petition within 30 days, I think. then New Jersey can respond to that, and then Scoters can decide whether to take it or ask for more analysis, blah blah blah. So
At an absolute minimum, like I think we're months months away from this case actually appearing before the Supreme Court, even if the Supreme Court decides pretty quickly to take it up. But we could also be even months away from the Supreme Court making a decision about whether to take the case based on the merits of the case so far, right? So it's a big step, but it's far from decided.
you know, in terms of timeline or even if this is gonna go before the Supreme Court any time soon.
Charlie Horner (17:17.441)
Yeah, legal system famously. not very quick. but okay, Tom, let's take a very short break and we'll come back and we'll talk about the the fallout and the impact that any such decision might have.
Charlie Horner (17:36.556)
Welcome back to iGaming Daily. Now, Tom, we've we've mentioned PASPA and the repeal of Pasper back in twenty eighteen. And I think it's it is interesting that New Jersey is bringing this case towards the Supreme Court because as as you say, it was New Jersey back back in those days who brought the the repeal of PASPA towards the Supreme Court. do you think this is the most significant moment for regulated gambling since the repeal of PASPA?
Because it it seems to me that it that it would be. and whichever way the decision goes, the the impact is going to be absolutely seismic, isn't it?
Tom Nightingale (18:16.981)
I mean it is, definitely, right? Like I think it has to be, 'cause, you know, the repeal the the the repeal of Pasperas laid the laid the groundwork for or laid the foundation for what we see today in the US, right? Which is I think thirty four, something like that. States have legalized online sports betting of in some capacity. Some tie it to tribes in the state, you know, some allow only well, some allow only one operator to do business and and hand over like half their revenue to the state. Some allow
many, many online you know, there are some states that have a dozen or so online sportsbooks or whatever in the you know, in the state. and there are some who've decided not to legalise it at all. And the fact of the matter is at the moment, you know, we've seen a push recently from DraftKings, who have really in advance of the NFL season, really ramped up the marketing of their prediction markets product, hooked on kind of the fact that it's NFL season, and they're ramping up this marketing in California.
Texas, Georgia, Florida, which does have legal sports betting but only for the seminole, you know, only for hard rock. all of these are states that DraftKings cannot, DraftKings, FanJul, fanatics, whoever you want, cannot offer state regulated sports betting in because the state hasn't legalized it or, you know, has legalized it in a model that shuts out other operators in the case of Florida. But right now, because there is no definitive ruling either way saying you can't, you know, there's no ruling saying you can't do this.
Right now they are able to offer essentially sport a sports betting product and market it pretty aggressively in these states that have directly said, you know, to DraftKings and others, we don't want your sports betting product in this state. So from here, one of two things ultimately happens, right? Either the Supreme Court says to Cal she this is sports betting guys, you can't do this. In which case, everyone who's currently offering sports prediction markets
has to stop offering them. And somebody like Calchi would have to either stop offering sports, which you mentioned the volume. The latest estimate I saw from a pretty reliable source suggests that about 85% of their volume is on sports, expected to go above ninety percent during the NFL season. Polymarkets US platform, I believe, is more like ninety-eight percent of its volume is on sports. So either these platforms would have to stop offering sports and go, you know, go back to
Tom Nightingale (20:43.977)
stick with mention markets or, you know, politics or
Charlie Horner (20:47.083)
I interest in you in corn markets, Tom?
Tom Nightingale (20:50.475)
Corn exactly, yeah. price of gold, anybody? and then if that happened, what Calci would then have to do, if they wanted to carry on offering sports, they would have to go to all of these states that they've spent twelve to eighteen months, to put politely, antagonizing over the last year or so. And, you know, if they wanted to carry on offering sports, they'd have to say, Hey guys, by the way, can we have a license to offer sports? You know, that'd be an interesting conversation. Wouldn't love to be the fly on the wall for that. Or if the Supreme Court says actually you can do this.
Then all of a sudden, you know, big picture to put it very to put it very flippantly, nobody has to seek a state's approval anymore to to offer sports betting. You know, if you register with the CFTC and they the CFTC says you're fine. Don't forget, by the way, the CFTC at the leadership level currently just one guy. then they could offer sports nationwide and no state could really well, I suppose states could definitely challenge it, but you know, ostensibly no state could really do anything about it. So either way.
You we're currently in the weird middle grey area, right, where you can sort of do both things, and people like DraftKings and FanJuel are doing both things. whatever the decision at the Supreme Court ultimately ends up being is gonna be pretty transformative compared to the state of play that has been established over the last twelve months or so that's we've all been talking about for a year.
Charlie Horner (22:10.573)
Yeah, it's absolutely yeah. I I just go back to the to the word seismic, I think, i in either way. because if if like like you say, if if this if Calci and and so on and prediction market sports contracts are allowed, then think of all of that tax revenue that every single state makes from sports betting, regulated sports betting. That's gone. Because no no operator's going to continue offering sports betting in in the in the traditional sports book route if
If you can save on all of that tax and not have to jump through all the all those regulatory hurdles. and and th all these listed companies like Flutter, DraftKings, etc., they're they're openly telling investors that they are using prediction markets as a way of reaching the that those states that they can't currently reach. And I think it's about, correct me if I'm wrong, Tom, is it about forty percent of the US population is in those states that don't currently legalise
sports better in i in one way or the other. it's a signific it's a significant percentage of the population anyway, that they're kind of going after but but not in in the the the way they would really want to. So it's well yeah, we are in this huge grey zone and I think the Supreme Court decision would be very, very welcome in in either way. I think people would just want the clarity.
Tom Nightingale (23:12.735)
I think it must be I'm not sh it must be something like that, yeah.
Charlie Horner (23:38.262)
Let's bring things towards a bit of a close now, Tom. and I guess the question is if Supreme Court takes the case and says that sports contracts are under sports betting laws, do you think we're sort of heading towards a Black Wednesday type scenario for prediction markets? wha what what do you think's what do you think the ramifications would would be on on the other side?
Tom Nightingale (24:06.141)
it's interesting, isn't it? I it's it's difficult to say because what I will say is, you know, in in year in a few years covering the gambling industry, and this is obviously isn't exclusive to the US, this particular point, but like this industry is constantly evolving. You know, we've seen things like daily fantasy sports, right? Went from simple season lock, you know, went from sort of simple a simple product that maybe wasn't
As engaging apart from a a a core audience. Then you had DFS sort of 2.0, where it became much more similar to sports betting, one would argue, one has argued. that's just one example. Like we haven't even talked about things like, you know, sweepstakes gaming and that sort of stuff, where like these they're constantly evolving and like businesses will find ways to offer new products and tap into new audiences, right? So it's one thing to bear in mind is that if this Supreme Court decision, whatever the Supreme Court decision is.
It's not like that's sort of like a hard end to everything. Like stuff will continue to evolve and innovate beyond that decision, whatever that decision is. But in terms of prediction, yeah, I mean, yeah, like l like we've just talked about.
You know, we're talking about you can either offer sports nationwide or you can't offer sports anywhere as a prediction market, really. Unless, you know, somebody like Calchi goes looking for state licenses. And by the way, I'm sure there would be some states like if that happens, I'm sure there would be some states who would be willing to license Calchi as a regulated sports book, but you know, you're gonna get taxed big time. You know, states gonna be pretty, you know, some a state like New York or New Jersey.
gonna be pretty cheesed off about the fact that Calci has been offering sports there without paying state taxes for, hey, twelve, eighteen months or whatever. You can guarantee that's gonna come back round in the future one way or another to bite Calci, you if th if that's the scenario that happens. but I mean it would be pretty there's no doubt, you know, there's there's a certain element you mentioned sportsbooks saying they're ad you that they've been pretty I kind of respect how open like DraftKings and FanJuel have been in some ways about the prediction markets product because they have. They've been very they've been pretty frank in saying
Tom Nightingale (26:14.471)
Look, there's a huge chunk of the US that we couldn't operate, you know, we couldn't operate in, we couldn't sell our product in, we couldn't really advertise in. Now they can do all of that. So there's a certain element of make hay while while the sun shines, right? If there's a if there's a gap and there's a grey area, you rush into it and you make the money while it's there to be made. We've seen that with various products in this industry over the years. if that disappears, you know.
Companies like DraftKings and FanJuel just I mean, I'm sure it's not this simple, but essentially just go back to doing what they were doing before this explosion of sports production markets. You you offer your products to the portion of the US that you're you're available to. You hope that more states legalize sports betting and and a particularly online casino, where only seven seven states currently offer a online casino market, you know. You hope for those incremental opportunities. For somebody like Calci or Polymarket, if sports goes
I'm sure they'd find ways to innovate and do things next, but like, what do you what do you do next after you've hooked everything? Like, let's not forget that Calci, for a while, when they first started offering sports, Calci advertised themselves as offering s legal sports betting in all 50 states. seemed like a bold move at the time. That, by the way, was literally the very first line cited in the Ninth Circuit decision that went against Calci.
You know, you said you guys said the quiet part loud. You said you're offering legal sports back in all fifty states before the legality of your product has even been determined. You know, coming back so my point is you've positioned yourself as essentially a sports book alternative. If you then lose sports, you know, that's that's a hell of a path to then sort of have to walk back down the other direction, you know.
Charlie Horner (28:03.435)
Yeah, what what are you left with when you've lost, you know, somewhere between eighty-five to ninety-eight percent of your of your revenue? it's it's enough to make many business leaders panic. I think it's this this storyline has been absolutely fascinating for for the last two years, Tom. But I think what's perhaps most interesting about it is a gambling story is really broken through into the mainstream. I think this is this this is properly
Tom Nightingale (28:11.423)
Yeah.
Tom Nightingale (28:32.361)
Yeah, you froze up completely on my end as well then.
Charlie Horner (28:45.197)
Yeah, I think this has been you know one of the most interesting storylines I I've ever covered in in this industry, Tom. And I think one of the most pertinent points about this storyline is that it's it's completely cut through into the mainstream, hasn't it? Like this this isn't just a a niche gambling story. Everyone in the United States, it feels like, is talking about prediction markets. just before we wrap up, just just reflect on that and how this you know
Financial derivatives and all that. It seems seems quite complicated, but it is just the topic de jour in in the US these days, isn't it? It's it's quite fascinating.
Tom Nightingale (29:20.699)
It is, I mean it really is. I would say that from our gambling industry bubble, the two storylines over the last sort of two years or so that have bled into the mainstream media coverage the most are the sports integrity side of things, right? Match fixing, should player prop bets be allowed. Like once you've got players being banned from the NBA, being banned from MLB, you know that that's a pretty mainstream issue. and then yeah.
prediction markets. And like I said, it's not necessarily all tied into the sports side of it in terms of the mainstream coverage, because you have like the insider trading and the politics and all that sort of stuff. But it is in s it like I see, just anecdotally speaking, like on my personal sort of social media accounts or whatever, I see people who have absolutely no connection whatsoever to the gambling industry in that like they don't even bet, generally speaking. Like
People I see a lot of people talking about Kalshi, Polymarket and and s i it's just that's an indicator to me of like the we're really outside of the industry bubble now on this thing. And obviously like there are a lot of people who maybe even maybe even users of Kalshi,who use Kalshi, to bet on sports, who won't necessarily be up to speed with like the legal side of it and what's happening. I'm sure there are people in the US who use Kalshi, who have no idea.
That Calci's sports event contracts are fundamentally the topic of litigation across the US that's going to reach the Supreme Court. They just think it's a cool new place to bet on sports. that's where we are now. and so it all comes back to the fact that whatever happens in the Supreme Court is is is pretty. I mean, you use the word seismic. I don't think that's overselling it, because either way, it is, right? You either have a fully legitimized
nationwide sports brain product or it gets put back in the box, you know.
Charlie Horner (31:14.731)
Yeah, it's it's a multi billion dollar industry that is ultimately resting on one decision, which is yeah, fascinating. And I don't think we'll be seeing documentaries about the gambling act review in the UK on Netflix anyway, anytime soon. That's let's put it that way. That's how much of this has broken through into the mainstream. But for now, Tom, thanks ever so much for coming on and talking to me about this today. It's yeah, a a huge story, huge development and something that we'll definitely come back to.
Tom Nightingale (31:29.343)
Ha ha.
Charlie Horner (31:41.656)
Thanks to Optimove for supporting the show, and to our listeners, thanks ever so much for tuning in to today's episode of iGaming Daily, and come back tomorrow to keep up to date with all the latest global gambling news.