Related works: How State Attorney General Coalitions Form, Grow, and Hold | The Kalshi Vehicle Contest — New Jersey Puts Prediction-Market Sports Betting Before the Supreme Court | The Kalshi Circuit Split — The Ninth Circuit Defines the Prediction-Market Gaming Boundary the CFTC Would Not
Thesis. States, tribes and firms each join lists against Kalshi or beside it. Joining a brief establishes no common gambling policy, and joining a venture establishes no authorization on another tribe’s land. State and tribal governments keep defending authority while firms and partner tribes pursue revenue, and neither activity stops the other.
Why Now. Ohio and 38 other states asked the Supreme Court on October 7 to hear New Jersey’s case against Kalshi. Kalshi named four more tribal partners the same day and is negotiating a round at about $40 billion ahead of a planned IPO. State and tribal governments, operators, counsel and investors each face a decision before Kalshi’s November 9 response.
Executive Summary
State coordination against Kalshi persists across distinct coalitions, and each coalition’s size and leadership follow the legal question. Thirty-nine states signed the briefs on state authority in March, June and October, and a Simulation Prediction places the next such brief at 37 to 41 states (78–88%). Twenty-seven signed for tribal plaintiffs in January under different lead offices, and 44 signed a July letter to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
The Thesis. Joining establishes neither a common policy nor authorization elsewhere. A state that signs keeps its own gambling law, and a tribe that partners speaks for its own land. State and tribal governments keep defending authority while firms and partner tribes pursue revenue.
The October 7 brief asks the Supreme Court to decide whether federal commodities law displaces state sports-gambling law. Eight signatures differ from the March brief once party status is set aside. Kalshi’s tribal announcement arrived the same day, one day after the Cabazon Band filed its own brief on reservation gaming authority.
Two Federal Tests. Kalshi’s sports contracts face two separate tests under federal law. The state test arises under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), and the tribal test arises under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). The Ninth Circuit ruled for tribal plaintiffs and wrote that it “would be compelled to reverse even if Kalshi’s event contracts were categorized as swaps.”
Investors appear in all three high-severity entries, and Section V reads the findings for five classes of capital. Kalshi is raising new capital ahead of an IPO planned for as early as 2027, Bloomberg reported. The Ninth Circuit found that sports supplied 95% of the company’s 2025 revenue. Two state coalitions and a tribal coalition each dispute Kalshi’s sports contracts.
What Distinguishes The MindCast Approach. Commentary counts signatures and partners. MindCast models each office, tribe and firm as a Cognitive Digital Twin (CDT) and simulates how the actors respond to one another.
MindCast AI applies Predictive Behavioral Economics + Dynamic Game Theory through MindCast AI Proprietary Cognitive Digital Twin Foresight Simulations (MP CDT FS). Behavioral Economics supplies the decision rules. Game Theory supplies the payoff structure. Predictive simulations emerge from the combination.
Earlier Simulation Predictions.
✅ Confirmed (75–88%). The September 2 paper forecast that fifteen or more states would file at this stage, and 39 did.
❌ Not met (70–82%). The August 29 paper forecast a three-to-one or two-to-two circuit count after the Sixth Circuit ruled, and the count stood two-to-one.
What The Paper Does. Section I covers the filings and the ten absent states, and Section II covers tribal authority and Kalshi’s IPO plan. Section III frames the competing explanations, and Section IV carries thirteen Simulation Predictions with risk mitigation. Section V reads the findings for each stakeholder and each class of capital, and Section VI states what to watch.
MindCast Simulation Prediction Highlights. The paper carries thirteen Simulation Predictions: four primary and nine secondary. The table shows the four whose outcomes carry the most information, because each actor faces opposing pulls.
IDSimulation PredictionOpposing PullsWindowBandP-2The states’ next state-authority brief changes at least two signatures from October 7A repeat signature against each office’s own enforcement and electionsBy June 30, 202760–74%P-3Nevada’s first response to an industry petition says the question warrants reviewTwo Ninth Circuit wins against the coalition’s need for reviewNevada’s first response71–84%P-4Kalshi announces another tribal ventureA new revenue line against tribal opposition and the IGRA rulingBy June 30, 202779–90%S-5Another platform stops sports contracts in a state after an enforcement step and without a court orderSports-contract revenue against the platform’s other licensesBy June 30, 202777–89%
Stakeholders.
🏛️ Policymakers. A signature defends authority and commits no office to sue, so enforcement still needs a statute, a budget and a named plaintiff. A final federal rule draws a court challenge by two or more states within sixty days (78–90% given a final rule).
🏛️ Absent Attorney General Offices. A favorable ruling benefits every state, while state-specific stakes give an absent office a reason to join. Six of the ten authorize no sports betting or limit it to tribal operators.
🏛️ Tribal Governments. Tribal sovereignty over gaming is each tribe’s own, and IGRA gives a tribe a federal claim against an outside operator.
💼 Executives. Ten absent states are not ten open jurisdictions, and a tribal partner’s app carries no permission on another tribe’s land.
⚖️ Counsel. State-law preemption and tribal authorization are separate claims, and a ruling on one leaves the other undecided.
📊 Investors. A valuation near $40 billion rests on sports contracts that face two federal tests, and a win on state law leaves the tribal test open.
I. State Lists Change With The Legal Question
State attorneys general coordinate through more than one coalition, and the legal question decides which one forms. A brief on state gambling authority draws 39 states under four lead offices. A brief for tribal plaintiffs draws 27 under two others, and an agency letter draws 44.
Ohio’s Solicitor General filed the October 7 brief as counsel of record, and 38 other states and the District of Columbia signed. New Jersey is the petitioner and does not sign. The brief asks for review “in this case, or in one of the many more cases sure to come” and warns that “waiting too long” lets the federal-state dispute escalate.
Three Circuits, Three Methods. The states’ brief calls the appellate opinions “divided on all possible modes of analysis.”
Third Circuit: sports contracts are swaps, and federal law displaces state gambling law.
Ninth Circuit: sports contracts are not swaps, so state gambling law applies.
Sixth Circuit: sports contracts are not swaps, and the federal statute carries no preemption of state gambling law.
The split reaches the definition of a swap under the CEA. The Third Circuit places sports contracts inside the definition, and the Ninth and Sixth Circuits place them outside.
State Filings Since 2025. The October brief lists the coalition’s earlier briefs on state authority, and the tribal-case brief and both letters carry their own links. Counts exclude the District of Columbia.
June 2025 · Third Circuit · 34 states · Nevada and Ohio lead
December 2025 · Fourth Circuit · 38 states · Nevada and Ohio lead
January 2026 · Ninth Circuit, tribal case · 27 states · Massachusetts and California lead
March 2026 · Ninth Circuit · 39 states · Ohio and New Jersey lead
April 2026 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 37 states · Nevada and Ohio lead
April 2026 · Agency comment letter · 40 states · Maryland’s release
June 2026 · Sixth Circuit · 39 states · Nevada and Utah lead
July 2026 · Agency comment letter · 44 states · Ohio leads
October 2026 · Supreme Court · 39 states · Ohio leads
What Changed Under The Count Of 39.
Out since March: Alaska, Indiana, Tennessee and Washington.
In since March: Missouri, New Hampshire, Vermont and West Virginia.
Changed by party status alone: New Jersey signed in March and petitions now, and Nevada was a party in March and signs now.
Across three filings: 35 states appeared as signer or party in the March brief, the April letter and the October brief. Ten appeared in one or two, and five in none.
Against the January tribal-case brief: 24 of its 27 signers also signed in October, and fifteen October signers had not signed for the tribes.
Absence Is Not Acceptance. Ten states stayed off the October brief, and InGame reported that nine have Republican attorneys general. Washington and Tennessee won court rulings against Kalshi’s sports contracts, and Kentucky is suing Polymarket’s U.S. exchange. Missouri sent cease-and-desist letters to six operators in September and then signed.
The Ten Absent States Hold Three Kinds Of Sports Betting Law. A state-by-state tracker sorts the ten into three groups.
No authorized sports betting: Alaska, Georgia and Texas. The Ninth Circuit recounted a Kalshi advertisement reading “Sports Betting Legal in all 50 States on Kalshi.”
Sports betting limited to tribal operators: Florida, North Dakota and Washington. Under Florida’s compact the Seminole Tribe of Florida holds exclusive sports betting, and the exclusivity is tied to nearly $1 billion of annual state revenue.
State-regulated or lottery-run markets: Indiana, Kentucky, Montana and Tennessee.
Six of the ten hold a prohibition or a tribal arrangement that Kalshi’s preemption theory would displace. In Florida, North Dakota and Washington the tribal arrangement is the state’s sports betting policy.
What Joining Asks. A signature asks little of an absent office, and five of the ten have given one before.
The ask is a signature: Ohio drafts and files, and no signatory commits to sue.
No shared policy is required: “Utah prohibits sports gambling; Ohio legalizes and regulates it,” the brief says.
The argument is state sovereignty: the brief says the States cannot be stripped “of their core sovereign power through relabeling and window-dressing.”
Five of the ten have signed before: Alaska, Indiana and Tennessee signed the March brief and the April letter. Washington signed the March brief, and Kentucky signed the April letter.
The Federal Side. The CFTC has sued at least nine states, according to the states’ brief. The CFTC sent two rule proposals on event contracts to White House review around the end of September, CDC Gaming reported. The states’ brief says “more litigation will surely follow” a final rule.
Three Petitions, Five Postures.
New Jersey (No. 26-299): asks for review now, and Kalshi’s response is due November 9.
Crypto.com (No. 26-344): lost to Nevada in the Ninth Circuit and asks for a grant “without delay.”
Robinhood (No. 26-338): lost to Nevada in the same court and told the Court that “granting certiorari now would be premature.” Robinhood asks the Court to wait for the CFTC rule and to grant its petition if the Court grants New Jersey’s.
Nevada: signed the brief asking for speed and told the Ninth Circuit there was “no reason to wait” to deny rehearing. Nevada also asked the Supreme Court to move its Crypto.com response from October 15 to November 16.
Kalshi: holds a Third Circuit win and has asked for more time at the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit.
⚖️ Counsel. A roster cited without its date can be wrong by the next brief.
Takeaway. The count on state authority holds at 39 while names change, and a different legal question draws a different coalition.
II. Tribal Governments Hold Their Own Authority While Kalshi Builds A Partner List
Tribal sovereignty over gaming is a separate layer of law with its own federal statute, and Kalshi’s partnerships leave it in place. IGRA covers gaming by 250 tribal governments, and five now own apps on Kalshi’s exchange. Licensed sportsbooks and investors face the same gap between a growing business and an undecided legal claim.
Tribal Sovereignty Is A Separate Layer Of Law. Six points define the layer, and each bears on where Kalshi can operate.
Authority predates the statute: the Supreme Court held in 1987 that California could not regulate the Cabazon Band’s gaming. The decision “prompted Congress to enact the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act,” the Band’s October 6 brief says. Congress found that tribes hold the “exclusive right to regulate gaming activity on Indian lands,” the Ninth Circuit recounted.
Three conditions: IGRA allows class III gaming on Indian lands only under a tribal ordinance, a state that permits such gaming and a tribal-state compact. The Ninth Circuit placed Kalshi’s sports contracts in class III.
Public revenue: IGRA limits net gaming revenue to five uses, and the first is “to fund tribal government operations or programs.” Tribal gaming produced $46.2 billion in fiscal 2025 across 545 operations.
The label does not decide: “IGRA does not ask whether the operator labels the product a bet or an event contract, or something else,” the Ninth Circuit wrote. The states’ brief makes the same point about “relabeling and window-dressing.”
The wager occurs where the customer stands: the panel located the wagering act “on Indian lands, even if Kalshi’s infrastructure operates elsewhere.” Compliance means location blocks drawn to each reservation’s boundaries.
Two statutes: IGRA “confers upon the Tribes a cause of action to enjoin Kalshi’s sports event contracts on their lands,” the panel held. The CEA and IGRA “simply address two different questions.”
Tribal Governments In Opposition.
Blue Lake Rancheria and Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians: the Ninth Circuit held on September 16 that the two tribes were likely to succeed under IGRA. The panel returned the remaining injunction questions to the district court.
Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Indians: filed its own brief on October 6. The Band’s Director of Legal Affairs placed a $25 bet through the Kalshi app on the reservation, the brief says.
Indian Gaming Association, National Congress of American Indians and Washington Indian Gaming Association: are preparing a coalition brief together on the “serious implications these activities pose to Tribal sovereignty.” The three associations cover the legal fees.
Washington Indian Gaming Association: welcomed a Washington court’s July ruling against Kalshi. “State law strictly limits sports betting to physical tribal casinos,” the association said.
California Nations Indian Gaming Association: answered the first venture with “a business deal does not change the law.”
Kalshi’s Partner Ventures. Each partner tribe decides for its own land, and one partner said so in Kalshi’s announcement.
October 7 partners: the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town in Oklahoma and three California partners. The California partners are Greenville Rancheria, Alturas Indian Rancheria and the economic development arm of the Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation.
First partner: the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana announced its venture in September.
Structure: each tribe owns its app and deals with customers, and Kalshi runs the exchange.
A partner’s own words: the Chief of the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town said the Tribal Town “will respect every other tribe’s authority on its land” and expects the same respect in return.
Licensed Gaming Firms.
American Gaming Association: President Bill Miller described the industry as on a “wartime footing” against the exchanges.
DraftKings and FanDuel: left the association in November 2025 and sell event contracts beside their sportsbooks.
FanDuel: said in January it offers no sports contracts where it runs a sportsbook.
Kalshi’s IPO And The Capital Around It.
Kalshi: the round under negotiation would value the company at about $40 billion, up from $22 billion in March, with an IPO as early as 2027.
Named backers: Coatue led Kalshi’s Series F round with Sequoia, Morgan Stanley and Ark Invest among the participants. The same report cites a securities filing showing about $1.12 billion of equity sold since April.
A court-ordered remedy in figures: a Washington court ordered Kalshi to geofence the state by September 2 or face $120,000 in daily fines.
Polymarket: raising at $21 billion.
Public operators: DraftKings rose nearly 10% and Flutter about 8% on the day of the Ninth Circuit ruling.
Robinhood: reported $156 million of event-contract revenue in the second quarter.
Why The Platform Precedent Only Partly Applies. YouTube and Uber grew through unresolved legal conflict and were later accommodated. Five points separate the cases, and two of them favor Kalshi.
Opponents: YouTube faced private rights holders, and Uber faced city regulators. Kalshi faces 39 states and tribal governments defending authority, which no licensing deal transfers.
Shelter: YouTube prevailed under a statutory safe harbor before the Viacom case ended by agreement in 2014. Kalshi argues implied preemption, and the Ninth Circuit read CFTC Rule 40.11 as barring its gaming contracts.
Remedy: YouTube answered copyright claims with filters and revenue sharing, and the business continued. Court decisions in Michigan, Nevada and Washington require Kalshi to block its sports markets there.
Sponsor: Kalshi has what neither firm had, a federal agency suing states on the same theory. Uber won its accommodation statute by statute in state capitols.
Partners: YouTube signed CBS, Sony BMG and Universal Music months before Viacom sued. Kalshi has signed five tribes among 250 tribal governments with gaming, and a tribe’s consent covers its own land.
📊 Investors. Kalshi’s private valuation rose across the same months that the Ninth and Sixth Circuits ruled against its sports contracts.
Takeaway. Tribal consent is granted tribe by tribe, so a partner list measures Kalshi’s distribution and not its legal access.
III. Why Lists Form Fast And What Joining Does Not Establish
A list grows quickly when one actor carries the work. The states’ briefs and Kalshi’s partner apps share that structure with one difference: a signature costs an office little, and a venture commits a tribe to an operating business. Payoffs explain why offices and tribes join, and decision rules explain why each one chooses differently.
Game Theory supplies the payoff structure. A favorable Supreme Court ruling protects every state whether or not the state signed, so each office gains by letting others carry the brief. A lead office that serves as counsel removes most of the cost of joining, and broad turnout follows.
Behavioral Economics supplies the decision rules. Loss aversion weighs on any government that already holds authority or a court win. Salience rises when an actor’s own enforcement is at stake, and eight of nine states the CFTC sued signed the October brief.
Reference points differ among tribal governments, whose gaming revenue funds public budgets under IGRA. Fortune cites federal data showing 9% of tribal gaming operations earning 56% of the revenue. A tribe with little gaming income weighs a new revenue line, and a tribe with a compact weighs the budget its gaming already funds.
Seven Explanations Compete. Each carries its own falsifier.
Lead Offices Carry The Work. A few offices draft, and the rest sign at low cost. Kalshi applies the same structure by running the exchange behind tribe-owned apps. Falsifier: counsel on the next state-authority brief comes from outside Ohio, Nevada, Utah and New Jersey.
Each Office Decides Again. Every filing is a new choice, so names change while the count holds. Falsifier: the next brief repeats the October roster.
Timing Follows The Expected Rule And The Vehicle. A party asks for review now when waiting offers it nothing, and asks for time when a final rule or another vehicle could improve its position. Crypto.com and Robinhood lost to Nevada in the same court and made opposite requests. Falsifier: Nevada asks the Court to wait.
Authority Defense Outlasts Commercial Entry. Governments keep litigating whatever partnerships appear. Falsifier: opposing tribes stop filing after the ventures.
Revenue Draws Partners. Actors whose gaming revenue is limited by geography or product take an exchange channel when another firm runs it. Falsifier: no further tribal venture, or a licensed operator closes its event-contract channel.
Party Alignment. Offices aligned with the administration stay out. Falsifier: aligned offices join.
Administrative Noise. Roster changes reflect missed deadlines and staffing. Falsifier: offices move in step with their own enforcement.
October’s evidence cuts against party alignment, because Missouri, New Hampshire and West Virginia joined. Missouri also signed weeks after its own enforcement step, which cuts against noise for that office. The thirteen Simulation Predictions rest on the first five explanations.
The Actors.
🏛️ States: Ohio drafts and files, New Jersey petitions, and Nevada defends two Ninth Circuit wins. Thirty-five states appeared in all three filings compared in Section I, and ten moved in or out.
🏛️ Tribal governments: tribes and their associations defend authority over their own land in their own filings. Five partner tribes own exchange-backed apps.
💼 Firms: Kalshi runs the exchange, and Robinhood and Crypto.com petition. DraftKings and FanDuel hold licenses and sell event contracts.
Federal bodies: the CFTC writes the rule and sues states. The Supreme Court chooses the case and the calendar.
The Contest In Sequence. Each actor answers the moves before it, and the two industry petitioners answer differently.
The CFTC claims exclusive authority, sues states and drafts a rule.
Ohio answers with a brief any state can sign, and 39 offices sign at low cost.
Kalshi holds a Third Circuit win, so its best response is more time and more partners.
Crypto.com holds no win in Nevada and asks for a grant without delay. Robinhood holds the same loss and asks the Court to wait for the CFTC rule.
Nevada supports review of the question through New Jersey’s case, which keeps its own judgments out of direct review. A ruling there still sets the precedent that governs Nevada.
Tribal governments litigate under IGRA in their own filings, and five tribes take the venture.
DraftKings and FanDuel file nothing, because a filing on either side endangers one business.
The Equilibrium. No actor improves its position by changing course alone. The simulation tested each actor’s alternative, including Kalshi accepting review, Nevada opposing it and the tribes joining the states’ brief. None improved the mover’s position.
Two events end the equilibrium. A final CFTC rule turns signatures into lawsuits, and a grant of review raises the stakes of the next brief.
Payoffs leave some choices open, and decision rules close them. The two industry petitioners face the same payoff from review and state opposite beliefs about the rule. Crypto.com calls the rulemaking “irrelevant to the statutory preemption analysis,” and Robinhood says the rule “will provide significant clarity.” Loss aversion keeps Nevada defending its wins, and revenue reference points decide which tribes partner.
What Would Move An Absent Office. An absent state benefits from a favorable ruling without signing. Participation also depends on the office’s enforcement priorities and constituent interests. Game Theory identifies the payoff that ends free riding, and Behavioral Economics identifies the decision rule that triggers a signature.
A private return · Game Theory: free riding ends when a signer receives what an absent office does not. Three returns are within the lead offices’ reach: a state-specific section in the brief, a co-lead role and a drafting seat on any challenge to a final rule.
A home constituency · Game Theory: the payoff changes when someone at home asks. Tribal governments hold compacts in Florida, North Dakota and Washington. Legislatures set the law that Kalshi’s theory would displace in Alaska, Georgia and Texas.
Own enforcement · Behavioral Economics: salience rises when an office’s own action is at stake. Missouri signed weeks after sending its own letters, and Kentucky, Tennessee and Washington already litigate.
A cited silence · Behavioral Economics: loss aversion applies once silence carries a cost. Kalshi’s November 9 opposition can cite an absent office as a state that does not object.
Cover for aligned offices · Behavioral Economics: an office aligned with the administration weighs a brief against a federal agency that sues states. The brief argues state sovereignty and asks for no common gambling policy, and Missouri, New Hampshire and West Virginia signed it in October.
A new decision · Both: four absent states elect attorneys general on November 3: Florida, Georgia, North Dakota and Texas. Each new officeholder decides fresh, and a grant of review turns the next signature into a merits brief on state police power.
The ten sort into three groups, and each group responds to a different lever.
Litigating on their own: Kentucky, Tennessee and Washington. Nevada holds two wins and signed, so a state can protect its own case and join.
Signed twice and left: Alaska and Indiana signed the March brief and the April letter. No filing shows what changed for either office.
Never signed: five states. S-2 holds that Florida, Georgia and Texas sign nothing before July 2027 (60–75%). Florida’s compact revenue is the sharpest fiscal trigger, and Montana and Kalshi agreed to drop their cases against each other.
The levers change the margin, and S-2 remains the base case for three of the ten. The next state-authority brief opens the roster again, and P-1 and P-2 test whether an absent office moves.
🏛️ Policymakers. A coalition built on low joining cost supplies signatures, and the litigation still falls to the offices that file.
Takeaway. Low joining cost explains the breadth of the state lists, and the explanation holds only while joining is all the situation demands.
IV. MindCast Simulation Predictions And Stakeholder Risk Mitigation
The paper carries thirteen Simulation Predictions: four primary (P) and nine secondary (S). S-9 is conditional on a final federal rule, and four earlier entries are carried in their original wording. A state-authority case has a state or state official as a party and asks whether federal commodities law displaces state gambling law, so suits brought by tribes under IGRA fall outside P-1, P-2 and S-1.
What The Entries Test. The entries test which actors change conduct when legal opposition and commercial opportunity pull in opposite directions. Four entries place a named actor between the two pulls: P-2, P-3, P-4 and S-5. S-6, S-7 and S-9 are continuity entries, where a hit confirms the baseline and only a miss would carry news.
Each entry states the claim and its band. Four items follow: the falsifier, the exposure, the mitigating moves and the residual. Exposure assumes the claim resolves true and the stakeholder took no action.
A holder with nonpublic company information trades no public security on it, and an operator decides state access alone. The moves are analytic options and not legal, investment or fiduciary advice.
Severity is marked 🔴 high, 🟠 medium or 🟢 low. High bears on the sports revenue base, Kalshi’s IPO or a government’s authority.
Earlier Simulation Predictions
Six earlier Simulation Predictions from two MindCast papers have reached their outcomes. Five were confirmed and one was not met.
✅ Confirmed. “A certiorari-stage amicus brief supporting the petition is filed by fifteen or more states” (75–88%), from The Kalshi Vehicle Contest — New Jersey Puts Prediction-Market Sports Betting Before the Supreme Court. Ohio and 38 other states filed on October 7.
✅ Confirmed. “Kalshi seeks rehearing in the Ninth Circuit before the window closes” (66–80%), same paper. Kalshi petitioned on September 9.
✅ Confirmed. “Conditional on a rehearing petition, the circuit filing precedes any Supreme Court filing” (75–86%), same paper. September 9 preceded September 18.
✅ Confirmed. “Kalshi seeks an extension of its opposition deadline” (60–72%), same paper. The Clerk extended the deadline to November 9.
✅ Confirmed. “At least one Fourth or Sixth Circuit merits decision preserves or deepens the conflict by June 30, 2027” (74–86%), from The Kalshi Circuit Split — The Ninth Circuit Defines the Prediction-Market Gaming Boundary the CFTC Would Not. The Sixth Circuit ruled for the states on September 25.
❌ Not met. “The Sixth Circuit decision produces a three-to-one or two-to-two circuit configuration rather than avoiding the conflict” (70–82%), same paper. The count stood two-to-one, and the Fourth Circuit has not ruled.
Two Model Updates.
Breadth came before depth. How State Attorney General Coalitions Form, Grow, and Hold described a three-state group growing into a wide coalition in stages. Maryland convened the three-state group in April 2025, and 34 states signed two months later. The working group reached about sixteen states only by May 2026.
The Sixth Circuit ruled before the Fourth. The August 29 entry on circuit count assumed a Fourth Circuit ruling first.
Primary Simulation Predictions
The four primary entries test the count, the roster, Nevada’s timing and Kalshi’s recruitment. Three of the four carry high or medium exposure for investors.
P-1. The state coalition’s next multistate amicus brief in a state-authority case, filed in a federal court of appeals or the Supreme Court before July 2027, carries between 37 and 41 states as signatories (78–88%).
Why · Game Theory: Lead offices carry the drafting, so signing stays each office’s best response.
Why The Boundary Matters: A count below 37 means three or more offices left on net, and a count above 41 means absent offices joined. A count inside the range shows turnover without erosion.
Falsifier: A brief of 25 or more states in a state-authority case carries fewer than 37 or more than 41 signatories.
Exposure · 🔴 High: 📊 The share of Kalshi’s sports revenue earned in signatory states. 💼 Signatory states with pending enforcement and no tested geofence.
Mitigation: Portfolio leads rebuild the revenue bridge by state on three tiers (court order, enforcement action, signature only) before November 9. Compliance leads test a geofence for each such state by the same date.
Residual: Revenue by state is not public, so every bridge rests on estimates.
P-2. The brief that resolves P-1 differs from the October 7 signatory list by at least two states, after setting aside changes caused by a state’s status as a party (60–74%).
What The Outcome Tests: Each office weighs a repeat signature against its own enforcement posture. Timing sets the difficulty: a brief filed before January tests habit, and a later brief tests newly elected attorneys general.
Why · Behavioral Economics: Each office decides again at every filing, and the salience of its own enforcement moves it in or out.
Falsifier: The brief that resolves P-1 changes zero or one signature.
Exposure · 🟢 Low: 🏛️ One filing cycle in which a missed sign-on reads as a change of position. ⚖️ Pending filings that cite the October roster as current.
Mitigation: Solicitors general fix standing sign-on authority and a named contact before the November 3 elections. Communications offices prepare a one-paragraph statement of position for any brief the office skips. Appellate counsel date every roster reference to its filing.
Residual: Litigants still cite an absence as they choose.
P-3. Nevada’s first response to either industry petition states that the preemption question warrants the Supreme Court’s review, and does not argue that review of the question should wait (71–84%).
What The Outcome Tests: Nevada holds two Ninth Circuit wins that review puts at risk, and the states’ coalition needs review to answer the Third Circuit. Robinhood’s petition asks the Court to wait for the rule, so Nevada’s response must take a side on waiting. The response shows which pull governs Nevada.
Why · Behavioral Economics: Loss aversion weighs on Nevada’s two wins, and review through New Jersey’s case keeps those judgments out of direct review. The resulting precedent still governs Nevada, so the choice limits the risk and does not remove it.
Falsifier: Nevada’s response argues that review should await further lower-court rulings, or nowhere says the question warrants review. A request to hold the petition for Flaherty confirms.
Exposure · 🔴 High: ⚖️ Reply pages drafted against the wrong Nevada position. 📊 Quarters of a 2027 IPO window that overlap a pending Supreme Court case.
Mitigation: Counsel for the industry petitioners draft the argument against a hold for Flaherty before Nevada files. Portfolio leads compare the Court’s calendar with the IPO timeline before Nevada’s response date.
Residual: The Court sets the calendar, and a grant inside the IPO window puts the IPO and the decision on the same clock.
P-4. Kalshi announces at least one additional distinct tribal commercial venture beyond the four October 7 ventures and Tunica-Biloxi before July 2027 (79–90%).
What The Outcome Tests: A tribe weighs a new revenue line against opposition from other tribal governments and the Ninth Circuit’s IGRA ruling. Another venture shows the revenue pull still governs for some tribes.
Why · Both: Kalshi carries the exchange, so a small tribe weighs a new revenue line against little existing gaming income.
Falsifier: Neither Kalshi nor a tribe announces an additional distinct venture by June 30, 2027. Reported discussions do not count.
Exposure · 🟠 Medium: 🏛️ Each new venture is cited against opposing tribes’ claims. 📊 Partner counts read as legal access overstate the addressable market.
Mitigation: Tribal councils restate by resolution that no ordinance or compact authorizes event-contract trading on the tribe’s land before the Blue Lake remand hearing. Diligence leads tag venture revenue by territory before the next announcement. State-side counsel draft a reply paragraph on the partners’ own pledge before November 9.
Residual: A resolution governs one tribe’s land, and venture terms stay private.
Secondary Simulation Predictions
The nine secondary entries cover the lead offices, the absent states, the tribes and the licensed operators. The last entry covers a final federal rule. S-1, S-6 and S-7 print in compact form, and S-9 keeps full treatment because its exposure is high.
S-1. Counsel of record on the brief that resolves P-1 comes from Ohio, Nevada, Utah or New Jersey (82–92%).
Why · Game Theory: The four offices that built the template hold the lowest drafting cost.
Falsifier: Counsel of record comes from any other state.
Exposure And Move · 🟢 Low: 🏛️ Drafting sits in four offices, where one transition delays every signatory. Ohio’s Solicitor General places the template brief and the sign-on calendar in a transferable file before any January transition.
S-2. Florida, Georgia and Texas sign no multistate state-side court brief in the prediction-market preemption litigation through June 30, 2027 (60–75%).
Why · Game Theory: An office absent from every filing so far gains the ruling’s protection without signing.
Falsifier: Any of the three signs such a brief.
Exposure · 🟠 Medium: 🏛️ Three offices that Kalshi’s November 9 response can cite as states that do not object. 💼 Acquisition budget committed in three states whose offices have stated no position. 📊 The share of sports revenue a valuation assigns to the three states.
Mitigation: An absent attorney general states the office’s position in a public letter before November 9. General counsel obtain a state-law assessment for each state before the next quarterly budget. Finance leads cap acquisition spending there at an amount recoverable within one quarter. Portfolio leads list the three states as unassessed in the revenue bridge before November 9.
Residual: An absent office can act alone without notice, as Missouri did before it signed. Solo enforcement does not falsify the entry, and a signature on a multistate brief does.
S-3. A tribal coalition brief filed in No. 26-299 by the amicus deadline carries 36 or more tribal entities, counting tribes and tribal organizations (66–80%).
Why · Game Theory: The associations cover the cost, so a tribe’s decision turns on its position and not its budget.
Why The Boundary Matters: A count of 36 or more shows tribal governments signing in their own names. A lower count shows associations signing for their members.
Falsifier: A coalition brief carries 35 or fewer tribal entities.
Exposure · 🟠 Medium: ⚖️ Opposition and reply pages owed to IGRA. 💼 Tribal territories without a geofence. 📊 Sports volume placed on Indian lands, which Kalshi does not publish.
Mitigation: Respondent’s counsel allocate opposition pages to IGRA before November 9. Compliance leads map Ninth Circuit tribal territories into the geofence system before the Blue Lake remand order.
Residual: The tribal claim rests on IGRA, a separate federal statute, and an answer on state law does not decide it.
S-4. No brief filed at the Supreme Court in Nos. 26-299, 26-338 or 26-344 carries DraftKings, FanDuel or Fanatics as a named filer before the Court disposes of all three petitions (85–94%).
Why · Game Theory: A filing on either side endangers one of the firm’s two businesses.
Falsifier: A brief is filed in the name of any of the three operators.
Exposure · 🟠 Medium: 📊 Two business channels inside one equity, with one ruling governing both. 💼 An amicus window that closes without the firm’s facts on separating products by state.
Mitigation: Analysts separate licensed gaming revenue from event-contract revenue for each firm before the next earnings report. Boards decide the firm’s position on each question presented before the Court acts. Securities counsel describe both channels and the pending petitions in the next periodic filing.
Residual: The ruling governs both channels whether or not the firm filed.
Limit: A position agreed among operators carries antitrust exposure, so each firm decides alone or speaks through an association brief.
S-5. At least one prediction-market platform other than Gemini and Webull stops offering sports contracts in a state after that state’s cease-and-desist letter or enforcement filing, without a court order requiring it, before July 2027 (77–89%).
What The Outcome Tests: A platform weighs sports-contract revenue in one state against its other licensed businesses. A voluntary exit separates platforms that protect licenses from platforms that fight.
Why · Game Theory: A platform with other licensed businesses loses more from a fight than from leaving one state.
Falsifier: No state official or platform documents such a withdrawal.
Exposure · 🟠 Medium: 💼 Open contracts held by a state’s customers on the exit date, with about 30 days of notice. 📊 The share of event-contract revenue earned in states that send letters.
Mitigation: General counsel fix a litigate-or-exit rule for each state before the next letter arrives. Compliance leads prepare customer notices and a wind-down sequence within 14 days of any letter. Analysts model event-contract revenue by state enforcement tier before the next earnings report.
Residual: An exit in one state gives other states a precedent, and distributors do not report revenue by state.
S-6. The next qualifying state-coalition federal court brief, filed before July 2027, defends state gambling authority without requiring a common state legalization policy (90–97%).
Why · Game Theory: A request limited to authority is the only text that licensing states and prohibition states both sign.
Falsifier: A brief by two or more state offices abandons state authority or requires common legalization, or no such brief is filed in the window.
Exposure And Move · 🟠 Medium: 🏛️ A legislature that waits for the coalition to carry its policy loses one session. Legislative counsel draft statutory text covering sports event contracts before the 2027 bill-filing deadline.
S-7. At least one opposing tribe or tribal gaming association takes a further court action against contested sports event contracts before July 2027, despite tribal partnership entry (94–99%).
Why · Behavioral Economics: Tribal governments defend authority they already hold and the public budgets gaming funds, so loss aversion outweighs a venture’s gain.
Falsifier: No opposing tribe or association files a new court motion or brief in the window. Public criticism alone does not count.
Exposure And Move · 🟠 Medium: 💼 Tribal territories where an injunction can issue, which compliance leads block before the Blue Lake remand order. 📊 IGRA suits pending beside the state cases, which diligence leads carry as a separate revenue line.
S-8. DraftKings and FanDuel each retain both a licensed gaming business and a domestic event-contract channel at March 31, 2027 (85–94%).
What The Outcome Tests: Nevada’s gaming board called the two firms’ sports event contracts “incompatible” with the state’s gaming industry in November 2025. FanDuel surrendered its Nevada license, and DraftKings withdrew its applications. Ohio and Michigan regulators issued similar warnings, so the entry tests whether a second licensing state forces the choice.
Why · Game Theory: Each channel earns revenue, and each firm gave up its Nevada position to keep the event-contract channel.
Falsifier: Either firm closes either channel on or before March 31, 2027.
Exposure · 🟠 Medium: 🏛️ Licenses renewed without a written condition on affiliates’ event contracts. 📊 Quarterly spending on a channel whose legality the Court has not decided.
Mitigation: Gaming regulators publish a written position on licensees’ event-contract affiliates before the next renewal cycle. Analysts separate event-contract spending from sportsbook spending before the next earnings report.
Residual: A national ruling resets both channels at once.
S-9. A final federal rule allowing the contested sports-contract model, issued before July 2027, draws a judicial challenge involving at least two state governments within sixty days (78–90% given a final rule).
Why · Game Theory: A final rule gives the states one target, and the lead offices already carry the litigation.
Falsifier: Fewer than two state governments join a complaint or petition for review within sixty days. Amicus signatures do not count.
Exposure · 🔴 High: 📊 Revenue that depends on a rule under court challenge. 🏛️ An office absent from the caption because it had not chosen its role. 💼 Launch spending committed before the first ruling.
Mitigation: Attorneys general decide plaintiff or amicus status before publication. Diligence leads identify the revenue that depends on the rule before publication. Product leads stage rule-dependent contracts in tranches tied to the challenge’s first ruling.
Residual: The rule’s validity stays open through the litigation, and a court can stay the rule.
Carried entry: “Conditional on finalization, a state or tribal coalition files an APA challenge” (70–85%), from The Kalshi Circuit Split. S-9 adds a two-state minimum and a sixty-day window.
Earlier Capital Entries Still Open
Three capital entries from The Kalshi Circuit Split of August 29 remain open, and Kalshi’s $40 billion round bears on each. Reporting on the round discloses no terms.
⏳ “Legal fragmentation changes Kalshi’s financing terms, valuation language, or material disclosure” (69–81%through February 2027; 75–85% by any certiorari disposition).
⏳ “Any registration statement filed in this window treats the Rule 40.11 listing prohibition as a principal business risk” (90–96% given a filing).
⏳ “The next disclosed financing includes structure — preference, ratchet, or milestone — rather than clean equity” (60–72%).
Stakeholder Summary.
🏛️ Policymakers choose a role on the rule before publication.
🏛️ Absent attorney general offices state a position by signature or by letter before November 9.
🏛️ Tribal governments assert existing authority on their own land by resolution or suit.
💼 Executives test geofences by state and by tribal territory.
⚖️ Counsel draft for a Nevada that supports review.
📊 Investors rebuild the revenue bridge by state before November 9.
Takeaway. Four entries carry the most information because each actor faces opposing pulls: P-2, P-3, P-4 and S-5. Investors appear in all three high-severity entries: P-1, P-3 and S-9.
V. What The Findings Mean For Each Stakeholder
The same facts place a different decision before each audience. State offices decide whether to sign and whether to sue, and tribal governments decide how to assert authority on their own land. Executives decide where to operate, and counsel decide what to answer. Investors decide what assumptions a 2027 IPO can carry.
StakeholderWhat The Findings MeanDecision ExposedNearest Checkpoint🏛️ PolicymakersSigning and suing are separate acts, and a final rule is where they partPlaintiff or amicus role on a final rulePublication of a final rule💼 ExecutivesState access follows court orders and enforcement; tribal access follows each tribe’s own consentWhere sports contracts stay on offerKalshi’s November 9 response🏛️ Tribal GovernmentsIGRA is a separate federal test, and one tribe’s venture grants nothing on another tribe’s landOrdinance, resolution or suit on its own landThe Blue Lakeremand order⚖️ CounselTwo federal statutes are in play, and a preemption ruling does not decide the IGRA claimWhat the reply must answerNevada’s first response📊 InvestorsKalshi’s valuation rose while appellate losses accumulated, and revenue by state is not publicThe base case for a 2027 IPOThe Court’s action on the petitions
Consequences By Actor.
States: coordination outlasts any roster, because lead offices change with the question. Four states left the state-authority coalition between March and October, and four joined.
Tribal governments: each tribe’s authority is its own, so a partner’s consent does not bind a neighbor and litigation continues beside recruitment.
Licensed operators: DraftKings and FanDuel hold both products, and a court filing on either side exposes one of them.
The CFTC: finalizing the rule opens a court challenge. Holding the rule leaves CFTC Rule 40.11 in force, the bar on gaming contracts that the Ninth Circuit applied against Kalshi.
Kalshi: the opposition due November 9 can cite three appellate methods, the states’ reference to “many more cases” and the company’s tribal partners. Robinhood’s petition calls a grant now premature, and Kalshi can cite an industry petitioner for delay.
What Kalshi’s IPO Depends On.
Revenue by state: the share of sports revenue earned in the 39 signatory states is not public.
Wagers on Indian lands: Kalshi does not publish the share of sports volume placed on Indian lands, and the Ninth Circuit located the wager where the customer stands.
Two federal tests: a Supreme Court ruling on state law leaves the IGRA test, and the Ninth Circuit said its IGRA ruling holds even if the contracts are swaps.
Three court events inside a 2027 IPO window: the Court’s action on the petitions, a challenge to a final CFTC rule, and the Blue Lake remand order.
The platform path: a Supreme Court ruling for preemption, or a final rule that survives challenge, would give Kalshi the accommodation YouTube and Uber obtained.
Disclosure: three earlier capital entries remain open and resolve on the terms of a financing or an IPO filing.
What The Findings Mean For Each Class Of Capital. Each class of capital holds a different instrument on a different clock, so the same findings land differently.
Accredited investors: private shares and fund interests arrive without revenue by state. The three-tier bridge in P-1 addresses the gap: court order, enforcement action and signature only.
Institutional and crossover funds: the state cases and the IGRA suits are both pending litigation for any IPO prospectus. Three earlier capital entries test whether the next financing carries structure.
Hedge funds: each of the thirteen entries carries a date and a falsifier. DraftKings and Flutter rose on August 28, the day the Ninth Circuit ruled for Nevada.
Family offices: a concentrated private holding stays exposed through every court event before an exit. Neither the IGRA claim nor a challenge to a final rule ends when the Court acts on the petitions.
Sovereign funds: a government-owned investor would hold a company that 39 states oppose in court and that tribal governments sue under IGRA. A federal agency sues states on the company’s theory, so governments stand on both sides of the holding.
What A Miss Would Establish.
P-1: the next qualifying brief carried fewer than 37 states or more than 41. The count alone would not show why offices joined or left.
P-2: the next qualifying brief changed zero or one signature. One unchanged roster would not show that membership is fixed.
P-3: Nevada’s first response argued for waiting or never said the question warrants review. The response alone would not show Nevada’s reasons.
P-4: no additional tribal venture was announced by June 30, 2027. The miss would not show whether court orders, tribal opposition or Kalshi’s own choice explains the result.
S-5: no platform left a state without a court order before July 2027. The miss would not show whether platforms chose to fight or states sent no further letters.
Takeaway. Each audience faces a different decision on the same facts, and no audience can read its decision off a list.
VI. What To Watch
Two calendars decide what happens next: the Supreme Court’s handling of three petitions and the CFTC’s rulemaking. Eight dated events and five undated signals mark the path.
The Dominant Fork. Either the CFTC publishes a final rule before the Supreme Court acts on the petitions, or the Court acts first. A rule first moves the contest to a court challenge over the rule. The Court first leaves the briefs and the petitions as the measure.
📅 October 8: the amicus deadline in No. 26-299. A tribal coalition brief resolves S-3 and can resolve S-7.
📅 October 14 and 15: Nevada’s responses fall due unless extended. The first response resolves P-3.
📅 November 3: Ohio elects its attorney general.
📅 November 9: Kalshi’s response in No. 26-299.
📅 November 16: the date Nevada requested for its Crypto.com response.
📅 January 2027: new attorneys general take office.
📅 March 31, 2027: S-8 resolves.
📅 June 30, 2027: the horizon for the remaining entries.
Undated Signals.
The Ninth Circuit’s rehearing order: a denial removes Kalshi’s main ground for more time.
The Blue Lake remand order: the district court decides the remaining injunction questions.
The next brief in a state-authority case: resolves P-1, P-2 and S-1.
A final rule: starts the sixty days in S-9. The number of states that sue as named plaintiffs carries no forecast.
Each new tribal venture and each state letter to a platform: resolve P-4 and S-5.
Takeaway. Two signals arrive by October 15, and the rule’s publication date is the one that reorders every other entry.
Conclusion
Thirty-nine states confirmed the September 2 Simulation Prediction, and the lists around the October brief show what a count can establish. State coordination persists across distinct coalitions, and each coalition’s size and leadership follow the legal question. Joining establishes neither a common policy nor authorization elsewhere, and state and tribal governments keep defending authority while firms and partner tribes pursue revenue.
Thirteen Simulation Predictions now test the mechanism, and four carry most of the information. P-2, P-3, P-4 and S-5 each place an actor between legal opposition and commercial opportunity. A final federal rule is the event that separates the offices that sign from the offices that sue. State authority and tribal authority pose separate federal tests, and Kalshi’s IPO plan runs through both.
Working With MindCast
Commissioned work applies the simulation to a client’s own actors, options and exposure. MindCast builds CDTs for the offices, tribes and firms that matter to the client’s decision and reruns the contest against the client’s choices. Clients receive full probability distributions, state-by-state participation estimates and exposure figures built on their own revenue by state.
🏛️ Attorney general offices and regulators: a plaintiff-or-amicus assessment for a final rule, keyed to S-9. Offices outside the coalition receive a sign-on assessment keyed to P-1 and S-2.
🏛️ Tribal governments and associations: an assessment of contested contracts by tribal territory, keyed to S-3 and S-7.
💼 Operators: an access assessment by state and by tribal territory, keyed to P-1, S-2 and S-5.
⚖️ Counsel: reply modules for Nevada’s response and Kalshi’s opposition, keyed to P-3 and P-4.
📊 Funds, family offices and sovereign investors: a revenue bridge by state and by tribal territory against a 2027 IPO calendar, keyed to P-1 and S-9.
Contact mcai@mindcast-ai.com to scope a diagnostic.
Appendix A: MindCast Corpus
Five MindCast papers supply the earlier Simulation Predictions and the coalition argument tested here.
The Kalshi Vehicle Contest — New Jersey Puts Prediction-Market Sports Betting Before the Supreme Court. Source of the September 2 Simulation Prediction that fifteen or more states would file.
The Kalshi Circuit Split — The Ninth Circuit Defines the Prediction-Market Gaming Boundary the CFTC Would Not. Source of the confirmed circuit-conflict entry, the circuit-count entry that was not met, and the four carried entries.
How State Attorney General Coalitions Form, Grow, and Hold. Supplies the argument that coalition size reflects the cost of joining, which this paper tests and updates.
State AG Coalitions in the Landscape of Emerging Federalism. Places the Kalshi coalition within the wider pattern of state responses to federal permission.
The Fourth Layer Of Prediction-Market Control — How The Kalshi–US Open Deal Put Sponsorship, Advertising, And Exclusivity Beyond The Reach Of The Courts. Covers the commercial activity that the states’ brief leaves untouched.
Appendix B: Sources
Every factual claim in the paper links to a source listed here, and each line states what the source supplies.
Court Filings, Statutes And Official Releases
Brief of Amici Curiae Ohio, 38 Other States, and the District of Columbia, No. 26-299 (U.S. Oct. 2026). The October 7 roster, the quoted passages and the list of earlier briefs.
Supreme Court docket, No. 26-299. Kalshi’s November 9 deadline and the other supporting briefs.
Supreme Court docket, No. 26-338. Nevada’s October 14 deadline.
Robinhood’s petition, No. 26-338 (U.S. Sept. 10, 2026). The request to wait for the CFTC rule and the conditional request for a grant.
Supreme Court docket, No. 26-344. Nevada’s extension motion.
Crypto.com’s petition, No. 26-344 (U.S. Sept. 11, 2026). The request for a grant without delay and the quoted view of the rulemaking.
Nevada’s request for an extension, No. 26-344 (U.S. Oct. 7, 2026). The requested November 16 date.
Brief of Amicus Curiae Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Indians, No. 26-299 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2026). The Band’s own filing, the 1987 decision and the bet placed on the reservation.
KalshiEX, LLC v. Assad, No. 25-7516 (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2026). The 95% revenue finding and the ruling for Nevada.
Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi, Inc., No. 25-7504 (9th Cir. Sept. 16, 2026). The IGRA ruling, the quoted passages and the remand.
Brief of Amici Curiae Massachusetts, California, 25 Other States, and the District of Columbia, No. 25-7504 (9th Cir. Jan. 16, 2026). The 27-state roster for tribal plaintiffs.
Brief of Amici Curiae Ohio, New Jersey, 37 Other States, and the District of Columbia, Nos. 25-7187, 25-7516, 25-7831 (9th Cir. Mar. 10, 2026). The March roster.
Maryland Attorney General, release on the April 30 comment letter (May 1, 2026). The April roster and the working group’s dates.
Kalshi, announcement of four tribal ventures (Oct. 7, 2026). The venture structure and the partner’s quoted pledge.
Indian Gaming Association, notice on the tribal amicus brief (Sept. 4, 2026). The coalition brief and its cost terms.
25 U.S.C. § 2710. IGRA’s three conditions for class III gaming and the permitted uses of net gaming revenue.
Press
InGame, on the 39-state brief (Oct. 7, 2026). The ten absent states and their attorneys general.
iGaming Business, on the 2025 Third Circuit briefs (June 18, 2025). The 34-state brief and its lead offices.
SBC Americas, on the June 2026 filings (June 17, 2026). The Sixth Circuit brief’s lead offices.
The Block, on the July comment letter (July 29, 2026). The 44-state count and Ohio’s lead.
CDC Gaming, on the rehearing letters (Oct. 4, 2026). Nevada’s quoted position and the rules under White House review.
DeFi Rate, litigation tracker (read Oct. 7, 2026). Missouri’s letters.
Yogonet, on the Tunica-Biloxi venture (Sept. 21, 2026). The first venture and the California association’s quoted answer.
Fortune, on the four tribal ventures (Oct. 7, 2026). The tribal revenue concentration data.
The Lines, on the American Gaming Association (Sept. 30, 2026). The quoted “wartime footing.”
Legal Sports Report, on DraftKings and FanDuel (Nov. 18, 2025). The two firms’ exit from the association.
Covers via Yahoo Sports, on FanDuel Predicts (Jan. 15, 2026). FanDuel’s separation of products by state.
Investing.com via Yahoo Finance, on Bloomberg’s report of Kalshi’s funding round (Sept. 30, 2026). The valuation under negotiation and the IPO timeline.
Cryptonomist, on Polymarket’s funding round (Sept. 1, 2026). Polymarket’s valuation.
Yahoo Finance, on DraftKings and Flutter (Aug. 28, 2026). The share moves on the day of the Ninth Circuit ruling.
Covers, on Robinhood’s second quarter (July 30, 2026). Event-contract revenue.
InGame, on the New Mexico tribes’ injunction request (Sept. 9, 2026). The court-ordered blocks in Michigan, Nevada and Washington.
Jurist, on the Viacom and YouTube case (March 2014). The safe harbor ruling and the 2014 resolution.
Converge Digest, on YouTube’s 2006 content deals (Oct. 8, 2006). The CBS, Sony BMG and Universal Music agreements.
Xconomy, on ride-hailing laws (May 19, 2015). State statutes that legalized Uber and Lyft.
SBC Americas, on tribal gaming revenue (July 21, 2026). The fiscal 2025 total, the 545 operations and the 250 tribal governments.
Track360, sports betting tracker (July 18, 2026). Sports betting law in the ten absent states.
Action News Jax via WOKV, on Florida’s compact (June 17, 2026). The Seminole Tribe’s exclusivity and the state revenue tied to it.
Tribal Gaming, on the Washington injunction (July 29, 2026). The Washington Indian Gaming Association’s quoted statement.
Washington State Standard, on the Washington order (Aug. 13, 2026). The geofence deadline and the daily fines.
The Block, on Kalshi’s securities filing (Aug. 26, 2026). The equity sold since April and the Series F participants.
InGame, on Nevada’s action against FanDuel and DraftKings (Nov. 12, 2025). The Nevada board’s notice, FanDuel’s surrender and DraftKings’ withdrawal.
iGaming Business, on the Nevada warning (Oct. 16, 2025). The warning to licensees and the earlier Ohio and Michigan warnings.
Ballotpedia, attorney general elections in 2026 (read Oct. 7, 2026). The four absent states that elect attorneys general on November 3.
