- FlightAware dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which leaves it free to refile the same claims.
- Judge Arun Subramanian had set a temporary restraining order hearing for Aug. 13 before the dismissal ended the case.
- The six-count complaint pleaded Lanham Act trademark infringement, breach of contract and New York unfair competition.
- Kalshi’s market pages now credit a “Primary Source Agency,” but its CFTC certification still names FlightAware as the primary one.
NEW YORK – FlightAware LLC voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against Kalshi on Aug. 11, one day after filing it. A federal judge had already signed an order directing Kalshi to appear Aug. 13 and show cause why it should not be temporarily restrained from using the company’s flight data to settle wagers on canceled flights.
A Case Filed Monday And Gone Tuesday
FlightAware filed on Aug. 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming four defendants: Kalshi Inc., KalshiEX LLC, Kalshi Klear Inc. and Kalshi Klear LLC. The case is FlightAware LLC v. Kalshi Inc., No. 1:26-cv-06824 (S.D.N.Y.).
The company moved for emergency relief the same day. Attorney William A. Maher filed an emergency motion for an order to show cause at Docket 6 on Aug. 10, supported by declarations from Ian Galloway and Maher and a memorandum of law. Justin Zimnoch entered an appearance for FlightAware the same day.
On Aug. 11 the case was assigned to Judge Arun Subramanian, who signed the order to show cause and set a hearing for noon on Aug. 13 in Courtroom 15A at 500 Pearl Street. The order gave the Kalshi defendants until Aug. 12 to file opposition papers and FlightAware until 9 a.m. on Aug. 13 to reply.
The proposed restraint had two prongs. One would have cut the defendants off from feeding FlightAware’s data into any gambling or event-contract product, naming markets on flight cancellations and delays specifically. The other reached the trademark, barring its use on any page or communication that “solicits, describes, verifies, settles, or resolves bets, wagers, event contracts, or positions.”
Later that day, Maher filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissing the action without prejudice against all four Kalshi entities. Nothing in the record indicates a settlement. The plaintiff withdrew before the hearing it had requested and preserved its right to refile.
What The Complaint Pleaded
The complaint ran 45 pages and pleaded six counts. Two arose under the Lanham Act: trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. Section 1114(1) and unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(a)(1)(A). The other four were breach of contract, injury to business reputation under New York General Business Law Section 360-l, unjust enrichment pleaded in the alternative, and New York common-law unfair competition.
FlightAware demanded a jury and asked for disgorgement of profits, actual damages with enhancement of up to three times under the Lanham Act, punitive damages, interest and fees.
The allegations centered on one act. On July 14, KalshiEX self-certified a flight-cancellation contract with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and identified FlightAware as the source that would settle it. FlightAware says it learned of that filing only when reporters called for comment. It canceled Kalshi’s free personal AeroAPI account and sent a cease-and-desist letter on July 15. Kalshi replied on July 17 denying any breach and asserting that its references to FlightAware were nominative fair use.
FlightAware owns two federal registrations for the mark, No. 3,222,789, registered in 2007, and No. 6,105,770, registered in 2020. The complaint alleged Kalshi displayed the mark in bold on pages soliciting wagers, hyperlinked it to FlightAware’s website and told customers the outcome was “verified from FlightAware,” with a flight counting as canceled only if it was “classified as cancelled by FlightAware as of the expiration time.”
The Name Came Off The Pages, Not Off The Filing
Kalshi’s flight-cancellation markets are still trading, and the rules text on the active contracts no longer names FlightAware. The JFK contract’s rules were updated on Aug. 11 and now read that the market “and these products have not been endorsed by the Primary Source Agency or its affiliates,” with references to “the Primary Source Agency’s delay and cancellation page.” The weekly nationwide contract carries the same wording and resolves on a figure published by an unnamed agency.
The exchange’s own market data for the JFK series, however, still lists FlightAware as the settlement source on a series record last updated July 14.
The binding terms were not changed at all. KalshiEX submitted the product certification to the CFTC on July 14 under Regulation 40.2(a), signed by head of markets Xavier Sottile and published on the exchange’s regulatory page. Its terms and conditions still state that “the primary Source Agency is FlightAware”, with U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics On-Time Reporting data as the secondary agency, applied only if the primary is unavailable. That document remained live on Aug. 12, the day after the dismissal.
The distinction matters because the certification, not the market page, is what the exchange filed with its regulator. The same document notes that a new Source Agency can be added by a Part 40 amendment, which is the process the exchange would use to substitute one.
What A Settlement Source Actually Controls
Every exchange listed on our Prediction Market Sites page pays out only when some outside party publishes a number that decides the contract. That is the dependency the filing exposed. FlightAware pleaded that without access to its data, Kalshi “could not settle those contracts or collect the transaction fees they generate,” and that it does not verify, certify, approve or determine the outcome of any Kalshi market.
The certification already names a federal dataset as the fallback, and FlightAware pointed to that provision as proof the markets could run without its name attached.
Kalshi’s exchange data shows the JFK contract on Oct. 21 cancellations has traded more than 3 million contracts, at a $1 notional value each, with open interest above 3 million. The aviation listings extended a product line that had already grown to the point where event-contract volume now rivals what America’s sportsbooks handle.
The rules also anticipate manipulation, the objection the complaint says Airlines for America raised when the markets were announced. The JFK contract’s terms carve out “Excluded Events,” defined to include unlawful interference with civil aviation and any deliberate act undertaken with the purpose or reasonably foreseeable effect of disrupting operations at the airport. The definition names unauthorized drone operations, laser illumination, trespass into the air operations area, tampering with airport or air traffic control infrastructure, and false reports or threats.
What Happens Next
Because the dismissal was without prejudice, FlightAware can refile the same claims. The Aug. 13 show-cause hearing is off the calendar, and no court has ruled on whether Kalshi’s use of the data or the mark was lawful. The contracts remain listed on a federally regulated exchange, outside the state licensing structure that governs USA gambling sites, with the JFK market covering cancellations on Oct. 21.