The state's demands
->Statens krav
Paragraph:The petition seeks to force Kalshi to identify affected customers, itemize their wagers and losses, and detail the company's gains from the alleged unauthorized offers. New York is asking for customer restitution, damages, disgorgement of profits, prejudgment interest, costs, and penalties. Those penalties include three times Kalshi's alleged gains plus $100,000 for each unauthorized offer. The court has not yet found Kalshi liable, and no adjudicated gain figure or count of offers has been provided.
Translation:Framställan syftar till att tvinga Kalshi att identifiera berörda kunder, specificera deras insatser och förluster samt redogöra för företagets vinster från de påstådda obehöriga erbjudandena. New York kräver återbetalning till kunder, skadestånd, återföring av vinster, ränta före dom, kostnader och straffavgifter. Dessa straffavgifter inkluderar tre gånger Kalshis påstådda vinster plus 100 000 dollar för varje obehörigt erbjudande. Domstolen har ännu inte funnit Kalshi ansvarigt, och inga fastställda vinstsiffror eller antal erbjudanden har lämnats.
Note: "prejudgment interest" -> "ränta före dom" or "ränta före domen". I'll use "ränta före dom". "disgorgement of profits" -> "återföring av vinster" (or "återbetalning av vinster" but disgorgement is specific, I'll use "återföring"). "three times Kalshi's alleged gains" -> "tre gånger Kalshis påstådda vinster" (note: "Kalshis" is possessive, in Swedish we often use "Kalshis" with an apostrophe? Actually, we can write "Kalshis" as a genitive, but Swedish often uses "Kalshis" without apostrophe? Better to write "Kalshis" as in English? But in Swedish, we might write "Kalshis" but it's a name, so we can write "Kalshis" as a genitive form. I'll use "Kalshis" consistently. Now heading:Why New York says the bets are illegal
->Varför New York anser att spelen är olagliga
Paragraph:James brought the case under Executive Law Section 63(12), which targets repeated or persistent illegality. The petition alleges violations of New York's constitutional prohibition on gambling, three state Penal Law provisions, three Racing Law provisions, and the federal Wire Act. The state argues that Kalshi's sports contracts amount to unlicensed gambling, not legitimate financial trading.
Translation:James väckte talan enligt Executive Law Section 63(12), som riktar sig mot upprepad eller ihållande olaglighet. Framställan påstår överträdelser av New Yorks konstitutionella förbud mot spel, tre bestämmelser i delstatens strafflag, tre bestämmelser i kapplöpningslagen och den federala Wire Act. Staten hävdar att Kalshis sportkontrakt utgör olicensierat spel, inte legitim finansiell handel.
Note: "Executive Law Section 63(12)" - keep as is, maybe "paragraf 63(12) i Executive Law" but it's a specific law. I'll keep "Executive Law Section 63(12)" as it's a proper name. "Penal Law" -> "strafflag" (or "Penal Law" but we can translate to "strafflag" for clarity. "Racing Law" -> "kapplöpningslag" (or "racing law" but we'll translate. "Wire Act" -> keep as "Wire Act" (it's a federal law). "unlicensed gambling" -> "olicensierat spel" or "spel utan licens" - I'll use "olicensierat spel". Now heading:A history of regulatory friction
->En historia av regleringsfriktion
(or "regulatoriska friktioner" but "friktion" is fine. Paragraph:The lawsuit follows an October 2025 cease-and-desist demand from the New York State Gaming Commission. Kalshi responded by suing state officials in federal court, arguing that federal law preempts state gambling restrictions. On July 7, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Kalshi's request for temporary and preliminary protection from state enforcement. That ruling was an interim decision, not a final judgment on Kalshi's preemption claims. Kalshi filed an interlocutory appeal the next day.
Translation:Stämningen följer ett krav på upphörande (cease-and-desist) från New York State Gaming Commission i oktober 2025. Kalshi svarade med att stämma delstatstjänstemän i federal domstol och hävdade att federal lag har företräde framför delstatens spelrestriktioner. Den 7 juli avslog U.S. District Court for the
