Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

A federal appeals court has ruled that New Jersey gaming regulators cannot prevent Kalshi from allowing people in the state to use its prediction market to place financial bets on the outcome of sporting events. The decision marks a significant victory for Kalshi and similar prediction market operators.The three-judge panel of the Philadelphia-based third US circuit court of appeals ruled 2-1, finding that the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has exclusive jurisdiction over the sports-related event contracts that Kalshi allows people to trade on its platform.This ruling is a major setback for states like New Jersey, which had argued that firms like Kalshi were operating without required state licenses, in violation of gaming laws, including bans on wagers by those under 21. New Jersey had sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter last year, stating that its listing of sports-related event contracts on its platform violated state gambling laws.Kalshi had sued the state, arguing that its event contracts qualify as “swaps”, a type of derivative contract, that under the Commodity Exchange Act can only be regulated by the CFTC, which had granted the company a license to operate a designated contract market (DCM).The ruling was in line with the position advanced by the CFTC under Donald Trump’s administration. The regulator sued Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois last week to prevent them from pursuing what it called unlawful efforts to regulate prediction markets.“Congress gave the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over trades on DCMs, and this decision affirms the goals of Congress,” said Brooke Nethercott, a CFTC spokesperson.However, US circuit judge Jane Richards Roth dissented, saying Kalshi was facilitating gambling and that its “offerings were virtually indistinguishable from the betting products available on online sportsbooks, such as DraftKings and FanDuel”.The New Jersey attorney general's office said it was evaluating its options, including potentially asking the full third circuit to rehear the case.

A New Mexico jury has ordered Meta to pay $375m in civil penalties after finding the company liable for misleading consumers about the safety of its platforms and enabling harm, including child sexual exploitation. This verdict marks the first bench trial to find Meta liable for acts committed on its platform. The lawsuit, brought by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, claimed that Meta executives knew their products harmed children but disregarded warnings from their own employees and lied to the public about the risks. The jury found Meta liable for violating New Mexico's consumer protection laws, specifically the Unfair Practices Act. The penalty of $375m is the maximum allowed under the law of $5,000 per violation. Meta has announced its intention to appeal the ruling, accusing Torrez of making 'sensationalist, irrelevant arguments.' Internal Meta documents and testimony revealed that company employees and external child safety experts repeatedly warned about risks on Meta's platforms. Evidence presented included details of a sting investigation, 'Operation MetaPhile,' which led to the arrest of three men charged with sexually preying on children through Meta's platforms. The New Mexico court also heard about deficiencies in Meta's reporting of crimes on its platforms, including the exchange of child sexual abuse material. Meta generated high volumes of 'junk' reports by overly relying on AI to moderate its platforms, making it difficult for law enforcement to investigate crimes. In the next phase of the legal proceedings, the attorney general's office will seek additional financial penalties and court-mandated changes to Meta's platforms to offer stronger protections for children. The state is seeking design feature changes, including 'enacting effective age verification, removing predators from the platform, and protecting minors from encrypted communications.' This verdict is seen as a 'historic victory' for children and families who have been affected by Meta's actions. The case may also open the floodgates to further litigation and regulation of social media companies.