-
FlightAware drops Kalshi lawsuit after flight contract language gets revised.
-
Kalshi replaces FlightAware references with broader data verification language.
-
Federal court case ends before any ruling on FlightAware’s core legal claims.
-
Kalshi still faces state disputes over sports-related prediction market contracts.
-
CFTC and state regulators remain divided over control of prediction markets.
FlightAware ended its lawsuit against Kalshi one day after challenging the prediction market over flight cancellation contracts. The company voluntarily dismissed the case on Tuesday after Kalshi changed language across at least one affected market. The rapid withdrawal removed an immediate legal threat involving flight data, trademarks, and contract settlement methods.
FlightAware Drops Case After Kalshi Changes Contract Language
FlightAware filed the lawsuit on Monday in the Southern District of New York over Kalshi’s flight cancellation markets. The company accused Kalshi of using its data and name without proper authorization for event contract settlements. FlightAware also sought temporary court restrictions covering the disputed use of its information and branding.
FlightAware withdrew the case through a voluntary dismissal filed with the same federal court on Tuesday. Neither company publicly disclosed any settlement, agreement, or other arrangement behind the quick dismissal. The court did not issue a final ruling on the claims raised within the original complaint.
Before the dismissal, a federal judge ordered Kalshi to address FlightAware’s request for temporary restrictions. That request focused on alleged trademark misuse and the presentation of flight cancellation information. FlightAware ended the lawsuit before the court decided whether emergency restrictions should apply.
Kalshi Revises Verification Language on Flight Markets
Kalshi changed wording on at least one flight cancellation market following the filing. Previously, the platform directly named FlightAware as the source used to verify contract outcomes. Kalshi later replaced that reference with the broader term Primary Source Agency.
The updated contract still linked users to FlightAware’s website for relevant cancellation and delay information. Kalshi added language separating the data provider from any endorsement or formal relationship. The change directly addressed concerns about how users could interpret FlightAware’s role in the market.
Kalshi did not publicly explain whether the revised wording formed part of any private agreement. FlightAware also did not disclose whether the changes satisfied its concerns about trademarks or data use. Consequently, the dismissal leaves the earlier legal arguments unresolved through any formal court judgment.
Kalshi Still Faces Wider State Regulatory Challenges
The FlightAware dispute developed while Kalshi continued fighting several legal challenges involving sports event contracts. New York authorities sued Kalshi in July and accused the company of operating an unlicensed gambling business. Washington and Michigan courts have also imposed restrictions involving sports-related prediction markets within their states.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has challenged state efforts to restrict federally regulated event contracts. The agency maintains that federal commodities law gives it authority over prediction markets operating under its oversight. That position has created direct conflicts between federal regulators and several state gaming authorities.
Minnesota has taken a different path after a federal judge blocked enforcement of its prediction market restrictions. That decision allowed Kalshi and Polymarket to continue operating while the broader legal dispute proceeds. FlightAware’s dismissed case adds another example of the legal pressure surrounding the expanding prediction market sector.
