Kalshi rebuts Roosevelt Institute claim of $583 million in retail user losses
Kalshi pushed back against a Roosevelt Institute report claiming retail users have lost nearly $600 million betting against professional traders since 2018. The think tank alleges ordinary users face a structural disadvantage. Kalshi called the analysis's methodology error 'hilariously wrong' and said its peer-to-peer marketplace has no house taking customer losses. The exchange did not detail the specific flaw. The report could sharpen political scrutiny of prediction-market consumer protections.
The nearly $600 million headline gives state attorneys general a concrete weapon against prediction-market expansion. Kalshi's core defense has always been that its peer-to-peer model protects users from casino-style house exploitation; the Roosevelt Institute counter directly undermines that claim ahead of pending state fights. Key battlegrounds include Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Kentucky.
If policymakers accept that retail users hemorrhage money regardless of market structure, the regulatory argument shifts from federal preemption to public protection. Kalshi must now produce transparency on user profitability or cede the moral high ground to critics pushing outright bans. Media outlets already face scrutiny over favorable Kalshi coverage; this accusation of systemic user harm makes balanced treatment harder to justify. The first state to cite this report in a legislative hearing will set the template for others.