Utah Sues Kalshi, Cites Up to $61.2M in Fees

Utah’s $61.2M Kalshi estimate is not an award

The state estimates fees of roughly $30.6 million to $61.2 million through October 19. Its calculation extrapolates a historical Utah share of activity across a much longer period and applies assumed fees. The complaint acknowledges that actual Utah activity could be higher or lower.

That is different from an audited accounting of what individual Utah customers paid. A transaction-fee estimate also measures something different from trading losses: fees compensate the venue, while losses arise from positions that decline or settle unsuccessfully.

KSL reported that the complaint separately estimates about $5.5 million in Utah-related gambling profits through May, based on proportional retail losses. That earlier estimate and the later fee range should not be presented as a single verified October loss total.

The historical account counts also need dates. The pleading cites February figures of 55,819 accounts registered with Utah addresses, of which 32,940 had completed verification. Neither number establishes the current number of active Utah traders.

Discovery could replace those assumptions with account-level records. Until that happens, the headline fee range describes the scale of Utah’s claim, rather than a fixed bill that the defendants must pay.

The requested remedies also have different purposes. Restitution would address losses, while disgorgement would recover money the court determines was improperly obtained. Utah seeks an accounting to establish the relevant amounts. Its upper fee estimate therefore does not function as a ceiling on every form of relief requested in the complaint.

Susquehanna brings market makers into Kalshi case

Utah’s decision to name trading counterparties expands the operational scope of the case. Alongside Kalshi Trading LLC, the complaint targets the two Susquehanna entities over their alleged role in supplying the other side of customers’ positions.

The institutional relationship predates the current dispute. In an April 2024 company announcement, Kalshi identified Susquehanna Government Products as its first dedicated institutional market maker. The release described that role as providing liquidity to its event-contract marketplace.

Liquidity means that a customer can find someone willing to trade at an available price. A market maker typically posts offers to buy and sell, taking inventory risk while seeking to earn money from the difference between those prices.

Kalshi’s own explanation of counterparties says users trade with other platform members rather than the exchange itself. It distinguishes market makers from traders expressing directional views and customers hedging external risks.

On its company information page, Kalshi says it earns transaction fees and does not profit from customers’ losses. The disagreement therefore concerns both the applicable regulator and how the separate corporate roles should be understood. An allegation against a trading affiliate should not be silently substituted for an established finding about the exchange’s revenue.

Utah takes a different view of the legal significance of that arrangement. It alleges that institutional participation helps operate a gambling business, rather than insulating the exchange from responsibility. Naming a market maker does not establish that those allegations are correct.

The potential consequence extends beyond a website’s availability. If the requested restrictions eventually reach counterparties as well as the venue, trading firms would have to assess the permitted geography of the positions they supply. That is an implication of the requested relief, not a confirmed withdrawal of liquidity.

Utah seeks Kalshi restrictions beyond sports contracts

The complaint requests preliminary and permanent injunctions covering sports, election or politics, culture and mentions contracts. Mentions markets concern whether a person will say specified words during an event, rather than who wins a sporting contest.

Utah also asks for a court-approved third-party location provider. The request concerns where customers are physically trading, a different question from the address collected when they register an account.

The attorney general’s account of the earlier federal ruling says Judge Robert Shelby rejected Kalshi’s argument that federal commodities law prevented Utah from applying its gambling laws to sports contracts. Kalshi has appealed, according to KSL.

That procedural history should be distinguished from Tuesday’s demand for affirmative relief. The new complaint does not itself order customers’ positions closed, establish a refund timetable or award restitution. The public copy reviewed also leaves the case number blank on its cover.

Daily Crypto Briefs previously covered Kalshi’s separate sports-contract litigation in Ohio and Tennessee. Those disputes illustrate why a ruling’s jurisdiction and specific remedy matter when assessing customer access.

Alternative.me’s Bitcoin sentiment index read 55, or Greed, versus 59 the previous day. It measures broader market sentiment, not the probability of a litigation outcome.

As of 21:35 UTC, no new injunction, verified access change or damages award was established in the materials reviewed. The next substantive developments are the defendants’ court responses, any hearing or injunction order, and records that clarify Utah’s fee estimates and the treatment of existing positions.