Tribal gaming leaders are calling out Kalshi, the prediction market company, for what they say is a misleading portrayal of its conversations with Native American organizations. According to Victor Rocha, a well-known figure in tribal gaming and the conference chair of the Indian Gaming Association (IGA), the talks, including two separate calls with Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour, didn’t go well at all.
Rocha told Sportico, the conversations were far from productive and left tribal leaders unimpressed.
“I’ve talked to Tarek Mansour twice now, and my take from him is that he’s a lying little twerp,” Rocha wrote on X, adding that after a group call with Kalshi, he and other tribal leaders agreed that the company’s approach lacked sincerity. Rocha said he later emailed Mansour, telling him he’d see him in court.
Kalshi claims ‘productive’ talks with several tribes
The dramatic escalation comes just weeks after a Kalshi spokesperson claimed that the company had held “productive conversations with several tribes” and would respect their “inherent sovereignty.” Rocha disputes that characterization, describing Kalshi’s outreach as disingenuous.
Yeah, I said it. "I’ve talked to Tarek Mansour twice now, and my take from him is that he’s a lying little twerp.”
— Victor Rocha (@VictorRocha1) June 23, 2025
The dispute is now spilling into a federal court case in the District of Maryland, where Kalshi is asking for a preliminary injunction to block regulatory hurdles to its market, which lets users trade on the outcomes of sports games. At the same time, Kalshi is pushing back against an amicus brief submitted by tribal groups, calling the filing both untimely and unhelpful.
Kalshi criticizes tribal groups over opposition
In a filing dated June 24, Kalshi stated that the amicus brief “would not be useful to the Court,” criticizing the tribal groups as having “no clear stake in whether Kalshi must comply with Maryland gaming laws during the pendency of this litigation.”
The brief “simply expand[s] upon arguments presented in Defendants’ briefs,” Kalshi argued, and thus “merely extends the length of a litigant’s own submissions,” something disfavored under established precedent, citing Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n.
Kalshi’s opposition to the motion also points out procedural failings: “Here, the brief comes more than a month after Defendants’ opposition to Kalshi’s preliminary injunction motion, and after this Court heard argument. This is far ‘too late’ for the Court to consider the brief.”
In addition, Kalshi warns that allowing the brief would prejudice its ability to respond. “If putative amici were permitted to file a brief at this late stage, Kalshi would have less than 48 hours before its supplemental response brief is due to respond to the material putative amici now raise.”
Despite the harsh language in court, Kalshi insists it has tried to be accommodating. “Kalshi wishes to be accommodating of parties claiming an interest in the ongoing preemption litigation, and has consented to all amicus briefs in the now-pending Third Circuit appeal. But this putative amicus brief is untimely and unhelpful.”
If the brief is that "unhelpful," the court could just simply accord it the proper weight (either a lot or a little or none). As to the claimed untimeliness of the brief, I don't see any undue prejudice to Kalshi. A short extension of time would cure any so-called prejudice.
— Daniel Wallach (@WALLACHLEGAL) June 24, 2025
Legal expert Daniel Wallach says that Kalshi may be mistaken, as “the tribal brief lends important insights on federal Indian gaming law.” He added: “As to the claimed untimeliness of the brief, I don’t see any undue prejudice to Kalshi. A short extension of time would cure any so-called prejudice.”
ReadWrite has reached out to Kalshi and the Indian Gaming Association for comment.
Featured image: Canva / Kalshi
