UMVA has learned that the Ho‑Chunk Nation is sharpening its legal battle against Kalshi, pivoting from a broad attack on sports wagering to a razor‑focused dispute over tribal gaming law and misleading advertising.
In a fresh filing, the tribe seeks the court’s green light to amend its complaint after a partial dismissal earlier this month. The new argument zeroes in on the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, a statute the tribe claims gives it clear authority to challenge Kalshi’s claims of nationwide legal sports betting.
Kalshi has long defended its platform under federal commodities law, citing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, while tribal groups and state regulators argue the offerings mirror traditional sports gambling.
Earlier this month, the court rejected the tribe’s Lanham Act claim, finding the original complaint lacked definitive legal footing to prove Kalshi’s statements about legality were false. The judge highlighted the national inconsistency in rulings on prediction markets and state gambling restrictions.
Now the tribe insists IGRA resolves that uncertainty, arguing class III gaming—including sports betting—is only lawful on tribal lands when authorized by tribal ordinance, conducted in a state permitting the activity, and governed through a tribal‑state compact.
The filing notes Kalshi previously challenged this interpretation, but earlier court rulings rejected the company’s arguments that IGRA does not apply, that federal commodities law alone authorizes its activity, or that the Commodity Exchange Act overrides tribal gaming authority.
Additionally, the Ho‑Chunk Nation accuses Kalshi of confusing consumers by advertising “Sports Betting” and “Sports Gaming” while simultaneously describing itself as a derivatives exchange that handles event contracts.
The tribe points to Kalshi’s portrayal as a “New York‑based DCM” that operates “event contracts” through market makers who “bolster liquidity.” It argues that rebranding the services purely with financial trading terminology would alter consumer perception.
The amended complaint alleges Kalshi’s marketing misrepresents the nature of its platform, violating the Lanham Act.
This Wisconsin lawsuit unfolds amid similar legal skirmishes in Arizona and other states, where regulators, tribal operators, and federal agencies clash over prediction market oversight.
Kalshi has recently requested the court pause its deadline to answer the complaint while the judge considers the amendment request, keeping the legal drama alive.
