Kalshi and Robinhood split on legal paths to save sports event contracts
Kalshi and Robinhood are pursuing separate legal challenges to a Ninth Circuit ruling against sports event contracts, with Kalshi seeking an en banc rehearing before 11 judges and Robinhood petitioning the Supreme Court. The litigation has reached the high court amid a broader docket that includes major tech antitrust cases, according to an Elliott Stein analysis. The platforms are not coordinating their strategies as they try to overturn rulings threatening their sports contract offerings.
Kalshi and Robinhood's split legal strategy fractures the industry's defense at a moment when state attorneys general are already picking off platforms one by one. If the Supreme Court grants Robinhood cert but denies Kalshi en banc relief, Kalshi could be left defending sports contracts in state courts while Robinhood waits years for a federal answer. That timing mismatch fragments liquidity and legal precedent across venues.
Kalshi faces geofence costs in Nevada and parallel suits in Connecticut and Baltimore that compound monthly, so any delay in unified federal relief shrinks its sports market before a ruling lands. Meanwhile Robinhood's OG.com dependency means its regulatory clearance rides on a partner, not its own license. The divergence turns a shared legal threat into a competitive race: whichever path yields a faster favorable ruling will draw sports volume and market-maker loyalty from the other.