Ariel Givner criticizes 9th Circuit ruling on sports event contracts
Ariel Givner posted on X that a 9th Circuit ruling on sports event contracts 'got this backwards.' Givner argued that sports event contracts listed on a designated contract market are derivatives. In a separate post, Givner said event contracts already face the same anti-manipulation rules as other regulated exchanges and that the focus should be on enforcing those rules against violators. Neither post identified a specific case.
Givner's intervention matters because she is staking out a pro-enforcement, anti-ban position that splits the prediction-market advocacy camp. She accepts the regulatory framework but rejects the judicial conclusion that CFTC-registered sports contracts are bets rather than derivatives. That framing offers platforms a defense against state gambling enforcement that does not rely on preemption: if the contracts are derivatives, they fall outside state gaming codes entirely.
For Kalshi, Polymarket, and Novig, this is a fresh legal theory to raise on appeal or in parallel cases. The 9th Circuit's reasoning reaches any platform offering sports-linked contracts, so a counter-argument that gains traction changes the trajectory for the whole sector. Givner's credibility as a former CFTC staffer gives the argument weight in enforcement circles.
Givner's defense of the event-contract model joins a crescendo of legal commentary around the 9th Circuit's Nevada preemption ruling, the second circuit-level loss this week to fracture the federal-registration shield Kalshi, Polymarket, and Novig have relied upon.