FlightAware, the real-time aviation tracking company, moved quickly to end its lawsuit against prediction markets platform Kalshi—less than a week after the case was filed and one day after a court ordered Kalshi to explain why a temporary restraining order should not be issued.
According to a Tuesday filing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, FlightAware’s attorneys notified the court that they voluntarily dismissed the action against Kalshi. The original lawsuit, filed the day before, alleged Kalshi used FlightAware’s name and data to run markets tied to flight cancellations.
Key takeaways
- FlightAware voluntarily dismissed its case against Kalshi in the Southern District of New York shortly after Kalshi was ordered to respond on restraining-order grounds.
- Kalshi’s event contract language appears to have shifted from “FlightAware” to “Primary Source Agency,” including an added disclaimer meant to avoid implying affiliation.
- The dismissal does not remove the broader legal pressure on prediction market operators facing challenges from U.S. states and regulators.
- Federal-state jurisdiction fights remain central, with the CFTC citing “exclusive jurisdiction” positions in related matters involving Kalshi.
A rapid procedural reversal in federal court
In its Tuesday submission, FlightAware’s legal team stated that it had voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit against Kalshi. The notice was filed after Kalshi had been ordered by a judge to show cause as to why the court should not issue a temporary restraining order involving FlightAware’s trademark and data claims.
The timeline is notable for its speed: the dispute was initiated with FlightAware’s complaint alleging trademark infringement, breach of contract, harm to reputation, and unfair competition. Less than a day later, the case was withdrawn.
Although such abrupt turnarounds can sometimes indicate settlement discussions, neither FlightAware nor Kalshi had publicly commented on the litigation as of Wednesday, according to the reporting context provided in the source.
Contract language changed—from “FlightAware” to “Primary Source Agency”
The lawsuit’s core allegation centered on Kalshi’s use of FlightAware branding and information to structure event markets related to flight cancellations. In at least one public-facing event contract, however, the wording appears to have been altered.
At minimum, the language describing the entity responsible for verifying outcomes shifted from “FlightAware” to “Primary Source Agency.” That same contract also included a disclaimer indicating that the market listing does not “indicate an endorsement of this product or any affiliation” between FlightAware and Kalshi. The “Primary Source Agency” label was linked to FlightAware’s website, aligning the verification reference with FlightAware while avoiding direct brand positioning.
Cointelegraph reported that it reached out to the companies for comment but did not receive an immediate response, leaving the reason for FlightAware’s dismissal unclear. What is clear for market participants is that these labeling and attribution details are not just branding choices—they can directly affect legal exposure when they imply relationships between data providers and market operators.
Prediction market legal pressure continues beyond this dispute
FlightAware’s withdrawal from the case comes amid an ongoing wave of litigation and regulatory conflict targeting prediction markets in the U.S. As outlined in the source material, Kalshi and other prediction platforms such as Polymarket have faced legal action from multiple U.S. state gaming authorities and regulators over alleged unlicensed or illicit sports betting offered to residents.
These cases have been shaped by a key tension: whether prediction markets fall under federal oversight—particularly the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)—or instead are primarily governed by state gaming and gambling laws.
In a separate matter involving New York, the CFTC invoked what it described as “emergency authority” to block state officials from seeking a temporary restraining order that would have prohibited Kalshi from offering event contracts nationwide. The move followed New York authorities filing suit in July, alleging that Kalshi was operating an unlicensed gambling platform through its contracts on sports and other events.
Federal vs. state jurisdiction remains the central battleground
The CFTC’s stance is tied to assertions made repeatedly by its chair, Michael Selig, that the agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets. In the New York fight, that position was used to counter state efforts to impose a nationwide restraining order.
The source also points to a Michigan case with similar themes. In June, a Michigan judge ordered Kalshi to stop offering sports betting contracts to residents until the civil case concluded. The CFTC—again under Selig—then ordered Kalshi not to comply with the state ruling, according to the referenced reporting. Kalshi’s leadership, including its head of enforcement and legal counsel as described in the source, characterized the situation as creating an “impossible position” between competing state and federal orders.
While FlightAware and Kalshi’s dispute over trademark and data has been dropped, the surrounding environment for prediction market operators has not eased. Instead, the legal focus appears to be shifting toward the broader regulatory framework—who has the authority to regulate these markets, and under what legal definitions.
For users and investors watching prediction markets, the next key question is whether the industry’s ongoing compliance approach—especially around data attribution and product affiliation language—will reduce friction in future disputes, or whether the bigger federal-state jurisdiction conflict will continue to dominate outcomes regardless of how individual contracts are labeled.
