Prediction-market operators cannot advertise through Google Ads to residents of Connecticut, Michigan, Nevada, New York or Ohio, as disputes over sports-related event contracts continue in state and federal courts. CDC Gaming reported that the restriction affects Kalshi and other operators.

The five-state list creates an advertising barrier even as the underlying legal questions remain unsettled. Google’s policy sets conditions for where these companies can advertise, separate from the cases over whether states can stop them from offering contracts.

Google’s certification rules

Google added a section on prediction markets to its main Google Ads policies document in the week before CDC Gaming published its report. The rules cover platforms that list, or provide customers access to, exchange-listed contracts tied to economics, sports or current events.

To advertise in an eligible location, a provider must hold the applicable local financial, commodities or gaming licences, comply with local laws and Google’s ad policies, and receive Google’s certification and approval. The company also requires advertisers to check the rules in each location they target.

Those conditions apply alongside the state exclusions: Connecticut, Michigan, Nevada, New York and Ohio. CDC Gaming reported that sports-event contracts are not available in Michigan or Nevada, a distinction from the wider advertising restriction, which covers prediction-market products.

State disputes continue

CDC Gaming said each of the five states has sued prediction-market operators in an effort to block them from operating within its jurisdiction. Connecticut’s action against Kalshi is one example of the conflict over whether sports contracts fall under federal commodities regulation or state gambling rules, a dispute also reflected in Connecticut’s challenge to Kalshi’s sports contracts.

Operators have also challenged state enforcement. Underdog sued Tennessee, its attorney general and the Tennessee Sports Wagering Council after receiving a cease-and-desist order over sports-event contracts. The company said Tennessee had warned it could face fines, civil penalties, criminal investigations and the loss of its fantasy sports operator licence if it did not comply.

In its filing, Underdog asked a federal court in Nashville to prevent Tennessee from barring the contracts. The company’s position is that the CFTC regulates its event contracts and that federal oversight exempts them from the state’s gambling laws. Underdog has sued seven states over efforts to stop its sports-event contracts: Washington, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Ohio, Wisconsin and Tennessee. The arguments remain claims by the company, not a resolution of the broader regulatory dispute.

The competing approaches to federal and state oversight of prediction markets have left operators facing both legal challenges and location-specific advertising limits. Google’s restrictions do not decide whether a state can regulate a contract; they determine where an eligible provider can buy ads through the platform.

Sports contracts dominate usage

Sports outcomes are also the most common category among prediction-market users, according to the S&P Global Market Intelligence Kagan Q3 2026 Consumer Insights survey reported by CDC Gaming. Of respondents who used a yes-or-no exchange in the past year, 70% traded sports-event contracts, compared with 36% who traded economic or financial outcomes and 33% who traded political outcomes.

The survey found that 10% of respondents had traded on a yes-or-no exchange over the previous year. Awareness remained limited: 42% had heard of prediction-market operators but had not used them, while 44% said they had never heard of prediction markets.

Legal questions remain open

BetMGM CEO Adam Greenblatt told analysts he expects the Supreme Court to rule against prediction markets and hopes the justices will clarify the issue during the 2026–2027 session. According to CDC Gaming, the court had not decided whether to hear the case, and its current term runs through June 2027.

The CFTC has also proposed rulemaking concerning casino-style products on prediction markets, but that effort does not settle the live state cases. For operators, the immediate position is clearer: Google’s five named state exclusions remain in place while courts and regulators continue to contest who can oversee sports-event contracts.

The post Prediction Markets Face Google Ads Limits in Five States appeared first on ReadWrite.

Polymarket’s Ethiopia election market saw more than $41 million traded on a candidate who did not become prime minister, while just $173,000 was wagered on the eventual winner. The pattern forms part of more than $600 million in combined volume across the platform’s Ethiopia and Romania election markets, where trading continued after major electoral events.

The activity raises questions about how long election contracts should remain open and whether headline volume reflects genuine interest. Much of the trading involved long-shot or losing candidates, according to WIRED’s investigation.

Trading continued after the results

Ethiopia’s Prosperity Party won 438 parliamentary seats in the summer election, compared with 13 for its closest competitor, giving Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed a path to another five-year term. Yet the market recorded more than $41 million in trading on Ahmed’s chief of staff, Shimelis Abdisa, becoming the next leader.

The Ethiopian market’s total volume exceeded $285 million, nearly all of it tied to losing candidates. MSR Decode, a prediction-market analysis firm, estimated that about $284 million came from pairs of accounts repeatedly trading with one another, WIRED reported.

Polymarket’s rules tied resolution to Ahmed’s formal appointment and oath of office, so the market remained open for 123 days after the vote. Polymarket’s head of global intelligence and investigations, Shana Bautista, said the company flagged the activity, investigated and blocked the accounts. The company did not answer follow-up questions about why they could trade so much before the intervention.

Romania’s 2024 presidential election process was annulled amid concerns about foreign interference. Polymarket kept the original election market open while a separate market ran for the subsequent vote, creating another period in which contracts linked to a disrupted process remained available.

Volume is not proof of market demand

Trading volume often rises with the perceived odds of an outcome, with frontrunners typically drawing more activity than long shots. But repeated buying and selling can inflate volume without representing comparable levels of distinct capital or genuine interest.

Rajiv Sethi, a Barnard College economics professor who studies prediction markets, and colleagues developed an algorithm that flagged nearly all of the Romanian market’s volume as suspicious; during certain weeks, it classified 99.6% as wash trading. That practice, which creates the appearance of heavy activity through repeated trades, is prohibited by Polymarket’s terms and banned on regulated US financial exchanges.

MSR Decode examined more than 38,000 post-election trade loops in the Ethiopian market. More than 98% left neither side with a gain or loss, and the median time accounts held contracts before reselling them was nine seconds. The firm identified activity farming-artificially increasing recorded volume-as the likeliest explanation, but the analysis did not establish who controlled the accounts or their intent.

Oversight questions remain

Sethi has described the Romanian activity as more dramatic than the Ethiopian case, but cautioned that apparent wash trading is not always wash trading. An earlier study by Sethi and colleagues also found evidence of widespread wash trading on Polymarket’s offshore platform.

Polymarket has raised more than $1 billion at an estimated $21 billion valuation and reported annualized revenue above $1 billion earlier in the summer. Volume is a prominent measure of platform activity, making the distinction between real trading and repetitive turnover consequential. The CFTC declined to say whether it is examining these election trades; it has previously investigated suspected manipulation on Polymarket, generally involving possible insider trading. The debate over prediction-market safeguards and contract controls now includes the question of how platforms monitor markets after the underlying event has effectively been decided.

The post Post-Election Trading Puts Polymarket Volume Under Scrutiny appeared first on ReadWrite.

New Jersey’s Senate Judiciary Committee has advanced S597 with bipartisan support, proposing to replace criminal penalties for gambling by people under 21 with civil fines of up to $500 for a first offense, $1,000 for a second and $2,000 for a third. The bill would direct the money collected to compulsive-gambling prevention, education and treatment programs.

The proposal changes the legal framework but does not remove penalties. It would cover under-21 gambling at casinos or simulcasting facilities, as well as adults who allow someone in their legal care or custody to gamble and casino licensees or employees who permit underage gambling.

Who the proposed fines would cover

S597 applies to people who gamble at a casino or simulcasting facility before turning 21. Its scope also reaches people responsible for a minor and casino licensees or employees when they allow underage gambling at those facilities.

The bill therefore concerns more than the young person placing a wager. For casino operators, the proposed framework retains a direct compliance consequence where a licensee or employee allows someone under 21 to gamble. The available reporting does not describe changes to age-check procedures or other operator requirements, so the proposal’s stated effect is the change in penalties.

That distinction matters: S597 does not simply eliminate consequences for underage gambling. It would replace a disorderly persons criminal offense with escalating civil fines, while preserving accountability for the categories of conduct identified in the measure.

Age-verification enforcement has also featured in other jurisdictions’ gambling regulation. In Ontario, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario fined Betty Gaming over underage-gambling issues, a separate case that illustrates how regulators can address age-related compliance concerns through operator enforcement.

How the fine schedule and funding would work

Under S597, the proposed maximum fine would rise with repeat offenses: up to $500 for a first violation, up to $1,000 for a second and up to $2,000 for a third. The source reporting describes those amounts as the proposed civil-fine schedule, rather than criminal penalties.

Money collected would support programs for compulsive gambling, including prevention, education and treatment. The Press of Atlantic City reported that the funding could go to programs such as those provided by the Council on Compulsive Gambling of New Jersey.

The funding arrangement is part of the bill’s approach to enforcement: penalties would remain, but their proceeds would be directed toward efforts intended to address gambling-related harm. The proposal does not specify in the available reporting how funds would be divided among programs or how the state would assess their results.

That focus on prevention sits alongside the bill’s provisions for casinos and their staff. Casino licensees and employees are among the parties the measure identifies when they allow an underage person to gamble, so the proposed civil framework would continue to make operator conduct relevant.

New Jersey regulators have separately taken action against licensed operators over responsible-gambling requirements. The state’s fine against Caesars Sportsbook provides context for the regulator’s use of enforcement in the market, but it is distinct from S597 and does not establish what penalties would apply under the bill.

Supporters point to accountability and prevention

Sen. Vince Polistina, a Republican from Atlantic County and one of the bill’s sponsors, has argued that casinos must follow the law while describing a criminal offense as too severe a consequence for a young person who makes a mistake. He also cited young people’s exposure to gambling through sports broadcasts, advertising and social media as a reason to reconsider how violations are handled.

Polistina’s stated position combines continued enforcement with a different form of penalty. Under the proposal, repeat offenses would carry higher civil fines, and collected revenue would go toward gambling prevention, education and treatment rather than leaving the matter solely within the criminal system.

Sen. James Beach, a Democratic sponsor, has emphasized the risk of gambling problems among young people and the possibility that criminal punishment could leave them with records. He has argued for focusing on behavioral changes and prevention instead.

Those positions frame the debate around how to respond when underage gambling occurs: the bill’s supporters say young people should remain accountable, but that a civil penalty linked to prevention and treatment is a more constructive response than a criminal offense. S597 would apply that approach to the covered gamblers, responsible adults and casino personnel specified in the proposal.

Committee approval is only an early step

The measure now goes to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee after advancing from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Its progress is not final approval by the Senate, and the proposal has not become law.

The bill mirrors a measure that was debated and received preliminary approval in the previous year but was ultimately not enacted, according to the reporting. That earlier effort did not result in the proposed change taking effect; S597 must still complete the legislative process.

As reported by the Press of Atlantic City and PlayUSA, the bill must pass the relevant committees in both the Senate and Assembly, win approval from the full membership of both chambers, and then go to the governor for action. Until those steps are completed, New Jersey’s existing criminal-penalty framework remains in place.

The post Civil Fines Proposed for NJ Underage Gambling at Casinos, Simulcasts appeared first on ReadWrite.

The CFTC is proposing clearer rules for event contracts as New Jersey asks the Supreme Court to review whether it can enforce gambling laws against Kalshi’s sports markets. Neither step settles the dispute over how federal oversight intersects with state authority.

Two measures, different purposes

Announced on Oct. 9, the CFTC’s proposed amendment would classify contracts tied to sports, politics, culture and weather as swaps. The agency says their exchange-based structure differs from ordinary betting: buyers and sellers set prices through orders, while exchanges collect trading fees rather than making money when a customer loses.

Chairman Michael S. Selig said, “The Commodity Exchange Act gives his agency sole regulatory authority over event contracts.” That is the CFTC’s position, not a court’s final ruling on the reach of state gambling laws. The proposal remains open to public comment and has not been finalized.

A separate interim final rule puts the agency’s longstanding exclusion for qualifying casino games and sportsbook wagers into its regulations. The exclusion applies when an operator is authorized by a state or tribal government and the wager is governed by the relevant gambling laws. It does not extend to transactions negotiated or carried out among participants on exchanges or other markets.

The distinction between event contracts and conventional wagers is central to the CFTC’s approach. Its proposed framework for event contracts is still under consideration, while the gambling exclusion takes effect when it is published in the Federal Register.

Kalshi’s New Jersey protection remains temporary

Kalshi can continue offering sports contracts in New Jersey under a preliminary injunction. On April 6, the Third Circuit upheld that protection, finding Kalshi had a reasonable chance of showing that federal law overrides the state’s restrictions. The court did not issue a final judgment in the lawsuit.

New Jersey filed its Supreme Court petition on Sept. 2. It asks whether federal commodities law prevents states from regulating sports bets offered on markets registered with the CFTC. The justices have not agreed to hear the case, and filing the petition does not lift the injunction or require Kalshi to stop offering its contracts in the state.

The continuing uncertainty reflects a broader legal dispute over state gambling rules and federal oversight. For Kalshi’s New Jersey operation, the practical position remains unchanged for now: sports contracts are available under court-ordered temporary protection, not a final ruling that resolves the state’s authority.

State safeguards are part of the dispute

New Jersey’s petition points to rules it wants to preserve, including a minimum betting age of 21, voluntary self-exclusion and limits on wagers by people with inside information. Licensed sportsbooks in the state also cannot take bets on college events held in New Jersey or involving a New Jersey college team, including Rutgers games played elsewhere.

The National Council of Legislators from Gaming States supports the view that federal oversight of an exchange should not erase states’ ability to enforce gambling rules. A prediction-market account does not automatically carry the same protections or requirements as an account with a New Jersey-licensed sportsbook, so eligibility terms, exclusion policies and dispute procedures may differ.

The next steps are administrative and judicial. The CFTC is collecting comments on its event-contract proposal; Kalshi’s response to New Jersey’s Supreme Court petition is due Nov. 9, according to the court docket. The court has not said whether it will take the case.

The post Kalshi Keeps New Jersey Sports Contracts Under Court Protection appeared first on ReadWrite.

Tribal gaming advocate Jason Giles and Nevada Gaming Control Board Chairman Mike Dreitzer challenged Kalshi’s claim that its sports-event contracts qualify as swaps, arguing that the products remain subject to gaming oversight. They raised their objections during the Indian Gaming Association’s weekly New Normal webinar, according to CDC Gaming, as state and tribal regulators contest the legal classification used by prediction-market companies.

Kalshi and other operators describe their sports contracts as innovative products that meet the legal definition of a swap. Giles, the Indian Gaming Association’s executive director, questioned what tribes signing agreements with Kalshi gain from the partnerships and warned that waiving tribal-sovereign immunity could expose tribes to future lawsuits.

Nevada says operators need a license

Dreitzer said Nevada welcomes new technology, but companies seeking to operate in the state must obtain a gaming license like other businesses. He also argued that prediction markets should not dictate policy to states such as Nevada or Utah without meeting their licensing requirements.

The Nevada regulator rejected the idea that describing a product as innovative resolves questions about whether it is an unlicensed sportsbook. He pointed to the difference between prediction-market platforms that generally allow trading from age 18 and states where legal retail and online sports betting typically requires customers to be at least 21.

Dreitzer also objected to allowing 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds to wager large sums and to operating in states where the activity may violate gambling laws. Nevada’s position, as he described it, is that innovation does not exempt an operator from licensing and consumer protections.

The dispute turns on whether sports-event contracts receive federal derivatives treatment or remain subject to state and tribal gaming controls. The classification matters to Kalshi’s operating position: its swap argument is intended to place its contracts under federal oversight, while regulators contend that gaming rules and licenses still apply.

Tribal partnerships draw scrutiny

Kalshi has agreements with the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe in Louisiana and the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town in Oklahoma to launch or plan tribally branded prediction-market apps using its infrastructure. Greenville Rancheria, Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation and Alturas Indian Reservation in California have also signed agreements.

Tribes involved in such arrangements have presented prediction markets as a potential source of digital revenue, particularly for communities without casinos. But the Alabama-Quassarte agreement has been the subject of conflicting statements: an October 7 announcement listed the tribe among new partners, while Chief Samuel Marshall Jr. said the tribe had not partnered with Kalshi or another prediction-market operator.

Scott Crowell, a lawyer with the Tribal Advocacy Group, questioned whether the tribes’ gaming agencies had made suitability determinations about the companies involved. He also said that existing agreements with gaming companies may require renewed scrutiny if those companies enter prediction-market gaming, since licenses must remain in good standing.

Crowell said courts have addressed whether the Commodity Exchange Act preempts state gaming rules, but he knew of no court decision holding that the act overrides the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. He said courts addressing the IGRA issue had found that it governs activity on Indian lands, where only activity expressly authorized by a tribe is permitted. Crowell also described a previously relevant case as overturned by the Ninth Circuit.

Swap classification remains contested

The disagreement is not simply over whether prediction markets use new technology. It also concerns the age of participants, the reach of state gambling laws and the authority of tribal governments over activity on their lands. The CFTC’s proposed distinctions among swaps, event contracts and sportsbook wagers address the same classification question at the center of the dispute.

For Nevada, Dreitzer’s stated position is that a company must secure a license before bringing its products into the state. For tribes, the open questions include whether agreements were properly authorized and whether partners meet suitability standards. The webinar did not identify a specific upcoming ruling or deadline that would resolve those questions.

The post Kalshi’s Sports Contracts Face Nevada Licensing Challenge appeared first on ReadWrite.

South Carolina lawmakers’ proposed online sports-betting framework could eventually generate about $40 million a year, with 5% of revenue earmarked for problem-gambling treatment and prevention. Sports betting remains illegal in the state, so the plan would need to become law before operators could launch under its rules.

The proposal, sponsored in 2025 by Sens. Tom Davis and Matt Leber, would allow as many as eight companies to run online sportsbooks. Its details were reported by the Charleston City Paper and summarized by GamingToday.

How the proposed market would work

Each operator would pay a $100,000 application fee and a $1 million licensing fee. The bill would tax adjusted gross receipts at 12.5%, with state estimates suggesting the market could eventually bring in about $40 million annually.

The proposed revenue split assigns 82% to the state General Fund and 10% to local governments for infrastructure. The South Carolina Department of Mental Health would receive 5% for problem-gambling treatment and prevention, while 3% would cover administration.

A new nine-member Sports Wagering Commission would oversee the market. The dedicated allocation would make treatment and prevention part of the proposal’s funding structure from the outset, rather than leaving those programs to compete for the remaining revenue.

That focus connects to a broader question about how states incorporate gambling disorder into public services. Illinois’ recognition of gambling disorder as a behavioral health condition offers another example of how the issue can be handled within a state system.

A proposal amid a wider policy debate

The 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision that opened the door to state-regulated sports betting has since been followed by legalization and taxation in 39 states and Washington, D.C., according to the reporting. South Carolina remains outside that group, although residents are described as using gambling apps, fantasy sports products, prediction markets and offshore sportsbooks.

Several gambling-related bills have appeared in recent South Carolina legislative sessions. A pari-mutuel horse-wagering bill passed the House in 2023 but did not pass the Senate; the Davis-Leber measure is a more comprehensive proposal focused on online sportsbooks.

The Charleston City Paper also cited a New York Federal Reserve report saying states that have not legalized sports betting can bear costs from cross-border wagering without collecting tax revenue. The policy debate therefore involves both potential public revenue and the risks associated with gambling, including the need for prevention and treatment.

North Carolina’s sports-betting expansion provides regional context for South Carolina’s debate over legal wagering and treatment resources. Sports betting in North Carolina has grown under a state-regulated model, while South Carolina’s proposed approach would set its own licensing, tax and funding terms.

Governor candidates differ on approval and safeguards

Republican nominee Alan Wilson has opposed legalizing casinos, even if voters approved them, but has said he is open to online sports betting with restrictions. His position reflects the view that residents can already place wagers online and that regulation should address that activity.

Democratic nominee Jermaine Johnson supports legalizing and taxing online sports betting only if voters approve it first. He has linked his emphasis on safeguards to gambling addiction in his family and said protections, prevention programs and treatment resources should be in place from the start.

The candidates’ positions leave voter approval and the scope of consumer protections as central questions in any push to legalize. The Davis-Leber proposal remains a plan, not an operating framework; South Carolina’s current ban remains in place unless lawmakers enact a change.

The post Treatment funds in proposed South Carolina online betting plan appeared first on ReadWrite.

The Louisiana Gaming Control Board unanimously granted DraftKings a conditional four-month extension of its sports-betting permit while regulators examine allegations about its use of artificial intelligence and questions about shareholder suitability. The board said the action is not a finding that DraftKings did anything wrong.

The extension allows the company to keep operating in Louisiana while the investigation continues. Its current license expires November 10, and a full renewal hearing is scheduled for February 18; the conditional permit runs through February 19.

Shareholder and compliance requirements

At the hearing, Assistant Attorney General Delancey Houston said the Louisiana State Police Gaming Enforcement Division had found information indicating that some shareholders with at least 5% ownership had not completed suitability review. One shareholder had asked to be treated as an institutional investor, but regulators had not decided whether that classification applied.

The board attached seven conditions to the extension. DraftKings must provide the required suitability submissions, or file petitions seeking institutional-investor treatment, within 30 days. It also must submit formal responses about its AI use, prediction-market activity, digital offerings to Louisiana residents and other information regulators request within 30 days.

Within 30 days, the company must also review and certify that its marketing materials, commercials and digital advertisements comply with responsible-gambling requirements. Other conditions require DraftKings to name a senior representative to handle board communications within seven days and to cooperate with the board’s directives throughout the conditional renewal.

Questions over AI allegations

Board members questioned DraftKings President of Operations and cofounder Paul Liberman and Chief Responsible Gaming Officer Lori Kalani at the hearing. Much of the discussion concerned a New York Times report alleging that DraftKings used AI to target losing bettors, as well as how it responds when customers show signs of gambling problems.

Houston said the investigation was incomplete and that regulators needed more time to examine the allegations. Board Chairman Chris Hebert said news reports do not establish regulatory violations, but the board must assess issues that could affect gaming integrity and consumer protection.

DraftKings disputed the allegation about targeting losing customers. Liberman said the company can use customer financial records to determine whether a person is winning or losing, but said it does not use AI to target losing gamblers. He also argued that many customers lose money over time, so identifying customers as losers would not, in the company’s view, make them a useful target group. That is DraftKings’ position, not a finding by Louisiana regulators.

Kalani addressed the company’s responsible-gambling practices, including interventions for customers who may need help. The board’s required review of advertising compliance adds a separate check to the ongoing investigation of the AI allegations.

Broader scrutiny and next steps

Louisiana’s review comes as regulators elsewhere are examining how sportsbooks use AI in marketing and customer targeting. ReadWrite has covered regulatory scrutiny of sportsbook AI marketing; the Louisiana board’s action, however, remains focused on its own investigation and does not establish that the allegations are true.

DraftKings must meet the board’s seven-day and 30-day deadlines while operating under the conditional permit. The investigation is still underway, and the next scheduled decision point is the full renewal hearing on February 18, one day before the extension expires.

The post DraftKings Gets Conditional Louisiana Sports-Betting Extension appeared first on ReadWrite.

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission has asked all seven licensed mobile sportsbook operators to explain how they use artificial intelligence and machine learning, giving them until November 3 to respond. The October 9 questionnaire covers marketing, promotions, customer engagement and the assessment of potentially harmful gambling behavior.

Executive Director Dean Serpa sent the letter to each operator. It divides the inquiry into eight operational categories, seeking details on both the technology companies use and how it shapes decisions about customers.

What regulators want operators to disclose

The commission asks whether operators use AI, machine learning, algorithms, automated decision-making or similar tools for marketing, promotions or customer engagement. If they do, operators must identify each system and explain its purpose, as well as say whether it was developed internally or supplied by a third party.

The questions also probe whether a system makes decisions about individual customers, groups or segments. Regulators want information about the data that feeds those decisions, how customers are selected for marketing, what offers they receive, and when and how often those communications go out.

A central concern is whether account activity can shape promotional targeting. The letter asks if systems can trigger marketing based on a customer’s recent betting, losses, deposits or other account activity, and whether increased losses, more frequent wagering or potentially harmful behavior can make someone more likely to receive an offer.

Operators that say those risk indicators do not increase a customer’s chances of receiving a promotion must describe the controls they use to prevent that outcome. The inquiry also covers behavioral targeting, responsible-gambling considerations, decision-making and human oversight.

Review follows DraftKings report

At a September 24 meeting, commission Chair Jordan Maynard said the MGC would begin evaluating each licensed sportsbook’s use of AI and its effects on Massachusetts customers. The decision followed a New York Times report alleging that DraftKings used AI and machine learning to target bettors considered most likely to lose.

The questionnaire does not establish that any operator has used its systems in the ways regulators ask about. Instead, it seeks company-by-company information that could help the commission understand how marketing decisions are made and whether safeguards address potential harm.

The questions connect to broader scrutiny of how sportsbooks use customer behavior to tailor promotions, including sportsbook promotions tied to predicted losses, a practice relevant to the commission’s questions about losses, deposits and wagering patterns as marketing inputs.

Responses could inform the commission’s next steps

Massachusetts is not the only state examining AI-driven sportsbook marketing. New York regulators have proposed restrictions on using AI to personalize promotions or recommend bets, according to reporting by RG.org; the proposal would take a different approach from Massachusetts’ current request for operator disclosures.

Sports Betting Dime reported that the MGC also plans to interview representatives from the operators about AI use in customer acquisition, promotions and responsible gambling. The commission’s review of written answers and interviews could inform whether it takes further action as it develops policy on AI.

For now, the immediate requirement is a written response from each of the seven operators by November 3. The MGC’s questions ask for details on the systems behind promotional decisions, including whether operators can explain why a particular customer received a particular offer.

The post AI Questions Put Massachusetts Sportsbooks Under Review appeared first on ReadWrite.

The CFTC advanced two measures affecting prediction markets, a move Nevada Gaming Control Board Chairman Mike Dreitzer said he expected as federal and state authorities dispute who should oversee sports-event contracts. CDC Gaming reported his comments during an Indian Gaming Association webinar.

Two measures set out different boundaries

One proposed rule would broaden the federal definition of a swap to include event contracts tied to culture, weather, politics and sports. A separate interim final rule, effective upon publication in the Federal Register, confirms the CFTC’s stated position that casino-style gambling products-including sportsbook wagers and casino games-are outside that definition.

The distinction is central to the disagreement: the agency’s measures would bring specified event contracts within its federal framework while drawing a line around traditional gambling. ReadWrite has also covered the CFTC’s proposed prediction-market framework, which addresses that boundary between federal oversight and state gambling regulation.

The same Friday the CFTC advanced the measures, Kalshi filed for a rehearing in its Sixth Circuit case involving regulators in Ohio and Tennessee. The appeals court had unanimously ruled against the company, finding that prediction markets were not exempt from state gambling laws, including tax requirements. The rehearing filing seeks another look at that ruling; it does not change the result already issued by the court.

Dreitzer disputes the distinction

Dreitzer argued that a sports-event contract and a conventional sportsbook wager are functionally alike. He pointed to the example of a $10 bet on the New York Giants compared with a $10 contract tied to a sports event, saying the CFTC’s effort to distinguish the two does not reflect how they work in practice.

His criticism also addressed arguments that prediction markets differ because they are peer-to-peer, support price discovery or let customers enter and exit positions. Dreitzer said those features do not make the products different from sports betting, noting that traditional online sportsbooks also allow customers to cash out. He further questioned whether the markets are genuinely peer-to-peer when financial firms or other exchanges can take the opposite side of a casual trader.

Dreitzer is a lawyer and former senior executive at Gaming Arts and Ainsworth Game Technology. His position reflects Nevada’s concern that sports-event contracts should face state gambling oversight when they operate like sportsbook bets. That dispute is also central to Nevada’s scrutiny of sports prediction markets.

Federal and state positions remain contested

The CFTC’s rules present a different regulatory line: certain event contracts would qualify as swaps, while casino-style products would not. Dreitzer rejects the practical distinction between those event contracts and sports wagers, making clear that Nevada’s regulator does not view federal treatment as settling the state’s gambling-law questions.

For Kalshi, the Sixth Circuit decision leaves the company subject to state gambling rules, including taxes, in the dispute before that court unless the ruling is changed. The company’s rehearing request is the immediate next procedural step described in the report. The CFTC measures, meanwhile, address the federal classification of event contracts and casino-style gambling; the available account gives no comment deadline or schedule for a final rule.

The post Sports Contracts Face Nevada Challenge Over CFTC Treatment appeared first on ReadWrite.

Hacksaw Group has launched a B2B prediction-market platform for operators, entering a sector where annual global trading volume could reach about $1 trillion by 2030, according to an estimate cited in the company’s announcement.

The Stockholm-listed technology and game developer says the platform will let operators offer peer-to-peer prediction markets using Hacksaw’s technology, distribution network and operator relationships. The company says Bernstein estimated the market’s annual volume could reach that level as adoption expands; it is not a forecast of Hacksaw’s own business.

Operators keep their brands and customer relationships

The platform is designed to spare operators from building and maintaining the underlying technology themselves. They can offer prediction-market experiences within their own businesses while retaining their brands, customer relationships and user experiences, according to the Hacksaw announcement.

Hacksaw says its connected volume framework is intended to pool peer-to-peer participation across its operator network, giving participating businesses access to broader capacity from launch. The company also says it developed the platform within its existing cost base. The announcement does not specify operator customers, trading volumes, revenue or a rollout schedule.

The Malta Gaming Authority has approved an extension of Hacksaw’s existing B2B Critical Gaming Supply License to include Type 3 Gaming Services, alongside its existing Type 1 authorization. Hacksaw says the extension authorizes B2B peer-to-peer prediction-market services under Malta’s regulatory framework; it does not establish where or when individual operators will offer the product.

“Prediction markets represent a compelling new opportunity at the intersection of technology, entertainment and market participation,” said Ana Vrabic Verdir, Group CEO of Hacksaw Group.

A move into an adjacent market

Hacksaw describes the launch as an extension of its existing technology business into an adjacent category. Its stated operations span game development and distribution, with customers that include large private and state-owned iGaming operators. Prediction markets, the company explains, let participants trade on the likelihood of future events and outcomes.

The model puts Hacksaw behind operators rather than in the role of a consumer-facing exchange. That approach echoes other efforts to pair prediction-market technology with established organizations, including a prediction-market product developed with the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe. ReadWrite has also reported on infrastructure and products aimed at institutional prediction-market users.

The announcement’s $1 trillion figure is a market-wide estimate attributed to Bernstein, not a projection of Hacksaw’s share. The company has not disclosed commercial agreements or expected fees, so the scale of any contribution to its business remains unknown.

Hacksaw’s next concrete indicators will be whether operators adopt the platform and whether the company reports activity or financial results from the new service. Its shares trade on Nasdaq Stockholm under the ticker HACK.

The post Hacksaw Targets Operators With Peer-to-Peer Prediction Markets appeared first on ReadWrite.

The Ohio Casino Control Commission has renewed its cease-and-desist order against Robinhood Derivatives, giving the company until Oct. 16 to comply over sports-event contracts and putting its expanding prediction-market business under direct state scrutiny. The order arrives as Robinhood’s event-contract business grows into a substantial source of revenue.

Ohio’s order reaches beyond contract providers

Bonus.com reports that Ohio also sent notices to nine other firms, including Coinbase Global, Gemini Space Station, Polymarket, ProphetX and Webull. The order concerns sports-related event contracts and extends to firms that facilitate them through futures commission merchant or designated contract market activities, not just companies that directly offer the contracts.

The action follows a Sept. 25 Sixth Circuit ruling that, according to Bonus.com and Yahoo Finance’s account of the case, allows Ohio to apply its gambling laws to sports-event contracts despite industry arguments based on federal commodities law. The order therefore tests whether federally regulated firms can continue serving Ohio customers with these products.

The deadline has been reported differently across the coverage. Bonus.com and Yahoo Finance say Robinhood Derivatives must comply by Oct. 16; Cleveland.com reports that Ohio’s cease-and-desist letters demanded operators stop immediately and warned of consequences if they did not comply within 14 days. The accounts do not establish how those timing descriptions relate to the renewed order.

A state-by-state operating challenge

The Sixth Circuit ruling has sharpened Ohio’s enforcement position, but the dispute is not confined to one state. Robinhood and other platforms maintain that their event contracts operate under federal commodities rules, while Ohio’s action treats sports contracts as subject to state gambling laws. That divide could leave a company federally regulated yet unable to offer certain products in particular states.

Connecticut offers a recent example of how access can vary by jurisdiction. Bonus.com reports that ProphetX, Gemini and Webull have exited the state following regulatory action, while Robinhood, Coinbase and Polymarket remain in discussions with regulators. The pattern adds weight to concerns that operators may have to manage a patchwork of state restrictions even as they continue operating elsewhere.

Ohio’s position also lands amid wider litigation over whether states can apply gambling rules to prediction markets. The Sixth Circuit ruling was a development in the case involving Kalshi, and state gambling laws and prediction markets have become a recurring point of conflict. The decisions and enforcement actions so far do not establish a uniform rule across the country.

Growth makes the deadline commercially significant

The regulatory dispute is unfolding as Robinhood’s event-contract activity expands quickly. Bonus.com and Yahoo Finance report that event-contract revenue reached $156 million in the second quarter of 2026, up more than tenfold year over year, while trading volume reached a record 13.6 billion contracts.

Robinhood’s joint venture with Susquehanna began routing event contracts in June and contributed $17 million in second-quarter revenue, according to the reports. If other states adopt enforcement approaches like Ohio’s, restrictions could affect where those contracts can be offered and put pressure on the company’s Rothera initiative. The central business question is whether that growth can continue if access is decided state by state.

Robinhood Derivatives’ compliance deadline is Oct. 16. Whether more states follow Ohio or Connecticut remains unresolved, but the outcome could leave Robinhood active in some jurisdictions while losing access to sports-event contracts in others.

The post Ohio Sets Oct. 16 Deadline for Robinhood Sports Contracts appeared first on ReadWrite.

Pennsylvania businesses and nonprofits have reached the deadline to remove skill-game terminals after the state Supreme Court classified the machines as slot machines under state law and lawmakers failed to agree on a regulatory system.

The court’s June ruling said the games are unlawful unless licensed. It paused enforcement for 120 days to give lawmakers time to act, but businesses were required to remove the machines by Tuesday, October 13; enforcement was set to begin Wednesday, October 14, according to CDC Gaming.

Enforcement follows the 120-day stay

The Supreme Court declined requests to extend the deadline, CDC Gaming reported. With the legislative window closed, an estimated 70,000 terminals across Pennsylvania were set to become officially illegal after October 13.

Law-enforcement agencies have said they will crack down on businesses hosting the machines beyond the deadline. The Pennsylvania State Police warned that terminals still operating on October 14 could be seized immediately and that business owners may face criminal prosecution.

The deadline follows roughly a decade in which skill-game terminals operated without a comprehensive statewide regulatory system. The 120-day stay offered lawmakers time to establish one, but they did not reach an agreement before the court’s deadline. ReadWrite has previously reported on the Supreme Court’s classification of skill games as slot machines and the consequences for operators.

Operators and casinos make competing cases

Pace-O-Matic, which develops skill-game software and terminals, said it is complying with the law and has urged operators and locations to make sure the games are no longer available to play. The company also warned that lost machine revenue would affect small businesses and organizations including American Legions, VFWs, volunteer fire companies and emergency-service groups.

Joe Rocca, owner of Pittsburgh-based Rite Touch Distribution, said removing the terminals threatens his business. He expects to have 1,000 machines left after removals are complete; he said almost all of his company’s business involved leasing terminals in Pennsylvania or selling them to distributors who leased them to local businesses and nonprofits.

Penn Entertainment welcomed the end of what it characterized as an illegal gaming industry, citing concerns about responsible-gaming practices, consumer protections and the absence of tax revenue for the state. Casinos and the American Gaming Association had argued that the unregulated machines sidestepped legal and regulatory requirements.

Supporters of skill games, by contrast, say the terminals provide an important source of additional income for small businesses, bars, taverns and nonprofits. Rocca supported regulation but objected to machines being placed in settings such as hair salons and mini-casinos.

Revenue alternatives and stalled bills

The Independent Fiscal Office estimates that each terminal can generate $47,000 a year, underlining the potential scale of the revenue businesses and community groups stand to lose. Some may turn to pull-tab machines or seek to become Pennsylvania Lottery retailers. Lottery spokeswoman Ewa Swope said the lottery has more than 9,900 retailers statewide and expects interest from players and businesses as skill games leave the market.

Two stalled measures in Harrisburg, House Bill 2213 and Senate Bill 1079, would set a $500 monthly fee for each terminal and cap the statewide total at 50,000. Their proposed framework was estimated to generate $300 million in annual state tax revenue.

A separate proposal in Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro’s budget would have allowed licensed establishments to host up to five machines, taxed gross revenue at 52% and raised an estimated $487 million in fiscal year 2026-2027, according to the Independent Fiscal Office. That plan also failed to secure agreement. The proposals remain a possible legislative route, but no replacement regulatory system was in place when enforcement began; lawmakers’ proposed skill-game rules have not resolved the immediate operating question for businesses with machines still on site.

The post Pennsylvania’s 70,000 Skill-Game Terminals Face Seizure Warning appeared first on ReadWrite.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal is accusing FanDuel of targeting and exploiting problem gamblers, bringing the sportsbook’s customer-protection practices under renewed congressional scrutiny. The allegation centers on a personalized video featuring baseball player Bryce Harper, but it is not a finding of wrongdoing or a formal enforcement action.

Blumenthal referred to an August report alleging that FanDuel used a Harper video message to reach someone already experiencing gambling addiction. He said the promotion appeared intended to encourage the customer to spend more, according to WTNH’s October 13 report.

The accusation also connects to scrutiny of FanDuel’s VIP program, where personalized messages and other benefits are used to engage high-value customers. Congressional scrutiny of FanDuel’s VIP practices has focused on whether such outreach can reach bettors showing signs of harm.

Lawmakers seek details on celebrity videos

In separate reporting, RG.org and PlayUSA said Blumenthal and two other lawmakers asked FanDuel for copies of about 30 personalized celebrity videos, along with information about who received them and how those customers were selected. The request followed an earlier exchange with the company over the Harper video.

The lawmakers also sought details about recipients’ betting activity before each video was sent, including their wagers and wins or losses. Their questions reportedly covered whether customers had used tools to pause or restrict gambling, what VIP hosts did to assess potential harm, and whether the company’s player-protection data also informed promotional targeting.

The Harper case prompted particular concern because the customer had lost $1.5 million on FanDuel, according to both outlets’ accounts of the lawmakers’ inquiry. That figure is part of the reported congressional concern about the video; it does not establish that the message caused the losses or that FanDuel violated a rule.

PlayUSA reported that the lawmakers set October 20, 2026, as the deadline for FanDuel to provide the requested material. That request broadens the focus from one disputed message to the company’s process for choosing VIP recipients and evaluating whether they may be vulnerable.

FanDuel’s account and the response still pending

FanDuel has previously described personalized celebrity videos as a token of appreciation for customers, WTNH reported. The supplementary accounts say the company likewise characterized the videos as recognition of customer loyalty, rather than an inducement to keep betting.

Those accounts do not resolve the lawmakers’ concern about how customers were selected or whether promotional decisions used information gathered to identify gambling harm. WTNH said it had contacted FanDuel for comment and was awaiting a response as of its report; it did not report a completed response or denial.

A wider consumer-protection question

The dispute raises questions about how personalized sportsbook marketing interacts with safeguards for at-risk bettors. Separate concerns about promotions directed at customers likely to lose more have also surfaced in scrutiny of sportsbook promotions, though the cases are not established as legally connected.

For FanDuel, the immediate outstanding step is the response to the lawmakers’ request. The October 20 deadline reported by PlayUSA gives the company a specific date to address questions about the videos, recipient histories and the role of customer-protection information in VIP outreach.

The post Lawmakers Seek FanDuel VIP Data After Harper Video Concern appeared first on ReadWrite.

The CFTC has issued an interim final rule and a separate proposal on event contracts, adding regulatory action to a dispute that states, the NFL and others are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear. The justices have not said whether they will take up the fight over whether sports-based contracts fall under federal swaps oversight or state gambling laws.

The competing arguments over state authority and Kalshi’s contracts arrive alongside an appellate split. The outcome could affect whether prediction-market operators can rely on a federal regulatory framework or face state gambling rules.

Briefs and CFTC action put focus on federal authority

Among those filing briefs urging Supreme Court review were former Senator Chris Dodd, former CFTC and SEC Chair Gary Gensler, the NFL, 39 states and the District of Columbia, and 145 tribal nations. Most of the briefs argued that sports-related prediction products should be treated as gambling rather than swaps regulated by the CFTC.

The CFTC’s two actions take different procedural forms: one is already in effect, while the other remains a proposal. The agency’s stated position is that casino-style gambling falls outside the swap definition, but event contracts remain within it. Its proposal would expressly include contracts tied to sports, politics, cultural events and weather.

Dodd’s brief argued that Dodd-Frank was not intended to let the CFTC displace state and tribal authority over gambling. It also rejected the idea that a contract’s listing on a federally registered exchange automatically shields it from state law:

“Nor is the CEA’s grant of ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ to the CFTC an express preemption provision immunizing every contract listed on a DCM from otherwise applicable state and tribal law. Rather, it identifies the CFTC as the federal regulator of covered financial instruments,” Dodd’s brief said.

Appellate courts disagree on sports contracts

The dispute turns on whether sports-related prediction products are financial derivatives or wagers. One appellate court ruled that the CFTC has jurisdiction over swaps and prediction markets covering sports. Two others treated sports-related prediction markets as gambling products for states to regulate, creating a split that supporters of Supreme Court review say warrants the justices’ attention.

The conflicting appellate rulings on prediction markets leave operators facing different conclusions about state enforcement. In the court case at issue, the Third Circuit ruled 2-1 that the CFTC had jurisdiction over the contracts. Most of the briefs now before the Supreme Court urge it to side with states instead.

Dodd’s filing distinguished derivatives used to manage commercial risk from sports wagers, arguing that parlays combining bets on spreads or player performances do not support hedging or price discovery. It also said the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over covered financial instruments does not amount to blanket preemption of state and tribal gambling laws.

Gensler made a similar argument, contending that Dodd-Frank did not give the CFTC authority to override state gambling laws. The agency’s position, as described in its actions, is that event contracts fit the swap definition even though casino-style gambling does not.

NFL raises concerns about oversight

The NFL said it has a direct interest in the case because of sports betting’s connection to the league. Its brief criticized what it characterized as the CFTC’s “laissez-faire” approach and pointed to the difference between state gambling regulators and the federal oversight of designated contract markets.

That disagreement extends beyond the legal classification of a contract. The league’s position is that the federal framework may not provide the same approach to gambling safeguards as state regulation, while the CFTC maintains that event contracts fall within its remit.

The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether it will hear the dispute. Kalshi’s deadline to file its response is Nov. 9, 2026; meanwhile, the CFTC’s interim final rule is in effect and its separate proposal remains under consideration.

The post CFTC Rule Puts Sports Event Contracts at Center of Court Fight appeared first on ReadWrite.

Six in 10 Americans oppose using prediction markets to wager on election results, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found, adding a public-opinion challenge as officials debate how to regulate the industry.

The online survey covered 4,506 US adults nationwide from September 30 to October 5, with a margin of error of about two percentage points. Opposition crossed party lines: 69% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans opposed election betting.

Government-event wagers draw strong opposition

The poll also found that 65% opposed betting on US military actions and 63% opposed wagers on government policy announcements or decisions. Support was low for both categories, at 8% for military-action markets and 9% for policy markets.

Polymarket and Kalshi offer markets on elections and other real-world events, alongside sports. The companies say they have safeguards against misconduct and work with authorities, including referring accounts they consider suspicious.

The survey found that 93% of Democrats and 89% of Republicans considered it inappropriate for members of Congress or their staff to bet on political events. In April, the Senate barred senators, staff and other officers from using prediction markets, while Democratic lawmakers have introduced bills to restrict the industry. Those efforts reflect concerns that political-event markets could create opportunities for insider trading or manipulation, and that trading around government affairs could raise national-security risks. Lawmakers have also called for tighter prediction-market safeguards.

Most respondents also see gambling

Views were less opposed, but still divided, on professional sports: 43% opposed prediction-market sports betting and 29% supported it. Three-quarters of respondents said wagering on real-world events through prediction markets is a form of gambling; 8% disagreed.

Polymarket has argued that its markets can provide information about events and said more than 90% of visits to its platform are to view markets rather than trade. The poll measures public sentiment, not whether the contracts are legally gambling or whether any particular market should be allowed.

Federal and state regulators remain at odds

The poll arrives as the Trump administration pursues federal rules for the industry and states challenge that approach. The CFTC asserts jurisdiction over the contracts as financial products, while state regulators argue that prediction markets facilitate gambling and should face state gaming laws.

The dispute over which framework applies could reach the Supreme Court, according to legal experts cited by Reuters. Until then, the poll adds a political measure of public resistance to a debate that will shape how operators such as Kalshi and Polymarket can offer event contracts in the US.

The post Public Resistance Puts US Prediction Markets Under Pressure appeared first on ReadWrite.

New York’s Gaming Commission unanimously advanced proposals to restrict how licensed mobile sportsbooks use AI to personalize promotions and wagering advice, alongside new requirements to identify and contact patrons who may be at risk of problem gambling.

The revised measures remain proposals, not rules in effect. The commission’s action puts both marketing systems and operator responses to risky betting behavior into the next stage of state review.

Proposals target personalization and at-risk bettors

The AI measure would restrict sportsbooks, their affiliates and vendors from using artificial intelligence, algorithmic profiling, machine learning, generative systems or other automated decision tools to analyze customer data and tailor promotions, bonuses, odds, betting limits, messages or product recommendations. It would also bar operators from suggesting particular wagers, types of bets or betting amounts.

The proposal would prohibit promotions intended to increase customers’ spending, revenue or engagement. It would not apply to parimutuel horse racing; the commission’s account also describes a customer-consent exception, but does not specify its scope.

A separate proposal would require licensees to identify customers who may be at risk of problem-gambling behavior and assign a person to engage them about those behaviors and related issues. New York has nine licensed mobile operators: Bally Bet, BetMGM, Caesars Sportsbook, DraftKings, Fanatics, FanDuel, Resorts World Bet, Rush Street Interactive and theScore Bet. The state taxes mobile sports-betting gross gaming revenue at 51%.

Commission flags gaps between operators

Commission Chairman Brian O’Dwyer raised the risk that a customer restricted by one sportsbook could simply move to another licensed operator. He urged companies to work together and share data so that customers could not avoid intervention by switching platforms.

“The industry is on notice by me and this Commission that they need to solve this problem,” O’Dwyer said. “It’s a problem that this Commission will require to be addressed and if the industry does not address it, then we will address it, and they may not like it or the solution we come up with.”

The measures were included in Gov. Kathy Hochul’s 2026 State of the State program, announced in March, which addressed underage gambling, marketing to at-risk customers and gambling addiction. New York’s AI proposal draws on a similar New Jersey regulation, according to CDC Gaming, but does not amount to an outright ban on the technology.

The New York action is part of a wider debate over how sportsbooks use customer data in marketing and how regulators should respond to gambling-related risks. ProPublica reported that the commission’s proposed rules would adopt specific thresholds for identifying at-risk bettors, followed by a required check-in; the details could change as the proposals proceed.

Industry says regulated market remains central

Sports Betting Alliance President Joe Maloney said the group would continue working with regulators to ensure the proposals strengthen New York’s regulated market. He also described licensed operators as accountable to state regulators for consumer protection, responsibility and integrity.

“Since 2022, New Yorkers aged 21 plus have been able to place legal wagers in a trusted, regulated market with licensed operators held to account by regulators that ensure commitments to consumer protection, responsibility, and integrity,” Maloney said in a statement.

Maloney also said the legal framework had ended the illegal market’s monopoly and that regulated operators now generate more than $1 billion annually in tax revenue. Those figures are the alliance president’s characterization of the market, not a commission finding cited in the reporting.

The revised AI rules will receive additional public comment before returning to the commission for discussion and a possible vote. Regulators have not set a date for a final vote, leaving room for further changes before any requirements take effect.

The post Sportsbooks Face New York Scrutiny Over AI and At-Risk Bettors appeared first on ReadWrite.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has issued two measures that would define which prediction-market contracts fall under federal derivatives rules and which remain gambling products overseen by states. The agency says event contracts are within its exclusive authority under the Commodity Exchange Act, a position that puts the rulemaking at the center of an ongoing jurisdictional fight, as the CFTC’s effort to clarify event-contract oversight shows.

One measure would expand the definition of a swap to include contracts tied to cultural events, weather, politics and sports. The CFTC says these products are commonly treated as swaps in trading markets and that the rule would resolve uncertainty about their status under federal law.

The second measure is an interim final rule that excludes casino-style gambling, including sportsbook wagers and casino games, from the swap definition. It takes effect upon publication in the Federal Register. Both measures have 30-day comment periods, and the filings were sent to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on September 28 before their release on Friday, October 9.

Federal rules meet state gambling authority

The distinction matters because the CFTC’s position is that qualifying event contracts are commodity derivatives within its exclusive jurisdiction. States, by contrast, argue that prediction markets fall under state gambling authority. A formal swap classification could strengthen the federal agency’s position, but it does not by itself settle whether federal oversight prevents states from applying their gambling laws to contracts traded on exchanges.

That unresolved question is already before the courts. The CFTC’s move comes amid a split between the Third and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals over whether event contracts qualify as federally regulated swaps, a disagreement that has placed Kalshi, Polymarket and other prediction-market firms in disputes with state authorities.

New Jersey has asked the Supreme Court to consider a case involving Kalshi. Gaming regulators from 39 states and the District of Columbia joined the NFL in urging the justices to take up the dispute. The court’s consideration of the petition gives the rulemaking a parallel track: the CFTC is seeking to put its interpretation into regulation while the broader authority question remains contested in court.

States and the NFL press their case

The NFL supports New Jersey’s request for Supreme Court review and argues that states are better positioned to oversee sports-related contracts under current conditions. Its lawyers warned that, without a decision from the court, operators could take advantage of the divide between federal and state rules, putting consumers and the integrity of sports events at risk.

The league’s position reflects the practical stakes of the dispute: states say prediction-market products belong within their regulatory remit, while the CFTC says qualifying contracts are derivatives under federal law. State officials’ challenge to federal oversight is part of the wider conflict over how these markets should be regulated.

The measures draw a line between event contracts that the agency would treat as swaps and conventional gambling products it would exclude. That boundary could shape how prediction-market operators structure their offerings and defend them against state enforcement, but it does not resolve whether states can regulate contracts on federally overseen exchanges. The dispute extends beyond the classification question to the reach of federal authority, as the federal-state battle over prediction-market rules continues.

Comment periods and court review ahead

The next administrative step is the close of the two 30-day comment periods. The CFTC can then consider the submissions as it decides whether to revise, finalize or withdraw the proposed approach; the interim final gambling exclusion is effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

Separately, the Supreme Court must decide whether to hear New Jersey’s petition. The CFTC is seeking to formalize its view of event contracts before that litigation produces further guidance, but the proposals do not settle the courts’ separate question of how federal rules interact with state gambling laws.

The post CFTC Draws a Federal-State Line for Prediction Markets appeared first on ReadWrite.

Wyoming’s Select Committee on Gaming unanimously sponsored draft legislation to ban online sweepstakes games, a proposal that would make operating them a felony but does not yet change the law. The measure would clarify a disputed area for state regulators and put operators on notice that the state may treat these games as illegal gambling.

Draft targets operators, not a settled legal category

The committee’s proposal concerns online sweepstakes games in which prizes are awarded by chance. Wyoming already bars online casinos, while online sports wagering and fantasy sports contests are permitted; sweepstakes games occupy less clearly defined ground under current state law.

That uncertainty has created a jurisdictional loop. When complaints arrive, the Consumer Protection and Antitrust Unit may view the games as gambling and refer them to the Wyoming Gaming Commission, which can send them back because the issue may fall under consumer-protection law. The proposed ban would make the state’s position clearer and, if enacted, expose operators to felony liability.

Wyoming’s move is part of a wider state-level debate over how online casino-style products fit within existing rules. The distinction matters for online casino gaming frameworks, where lawmakers and regulators have to determine which products can operate and under what conditions.

The committee also sponsored a separate draft updating fingerprinting requirements for certain people regulated by the Gaming Commission. That proposal addresses a different part of the state’s gaming oversight, rather than the legal status of sweepstakes games.

Industry attorney objects to the proposed scope

Bill Gantz, an attorney for sweepstakes gaming company VGW, argued that the draft could reach too broadly and conflict with Wyoming’s current treatment of sweepstakes tied to purchases of goods or services. Federal law requires such sweepstakes to offer an alternative method of entry, allowing people to participate without buying anything. Gantz told lawmakers that VGW has operated online sweepstakes games in the state since 2012.

The products can resemble online casinos, but Wyoming currently treats them differently. Online casinos accept real money and pay cash prizes, while sweepstakes games are free to play and treated as promotional advertising under the state’s Consumer Protection Act. Affie Ellis, a former state senator and attorney representing Bally’s Corporation, told lawmakers the visual resemblance can obscure that distinction.

The disagreement goes to the practical effect of the draft: whether a free-entry promotional model remains permissible or whether operating the games would instead trigger the state’s gambling prohibition. Other states’ enforcement choices have also affected operators’ ability to serve residents, as seen in Arizona’s cease-and-desist actions against online gambling operators.

Gaming growth puts regulation in focus

Wyoming lawmakers are considering the proposal amid rising wagering activity. Nicholas Larramendy, executive director of the Wyoming Gaming Commission, told lawmakers that about $2.7 billion was wagered across all forms of legalized gambling in the state last year. He said 2026 was on track to exceed $3 billion.

The Legislature formed the Select Committee on Gaming in 2025 to address gaming issues. The sweepstakes proposal adds a specific enforcement question to that work: which agency handles complaints when a product appears to combine promotional entry with casino-style play. State-level rule changes can also affect operator plans and timelines, as legal challenges over Maine’s online casino rules illustrate.

The committee’s unanimous sponsorship advances the draft, but the proposed felony ban is not in force. It must go through further legislative action before it can take effect, leaving operators and regulators to track both the bill’s progress and any clarification of which agency would handle complaints in the meantime.

The post Wyoming Panel Backs Felony Penalty for Online Sweepstakes appeared first on ReadWrite.

The Seminole Tribe has sued DraftKings in Broward County, alleging the company is offering unlicensed sports betting in Florida and violating the Tribe’s exclusive position under the state’s 2021 gaming compact.

The lawsuit puts DraftKings’ Florida products under direct legal pressure. The Tribe, which operates Hard Rock Bet, is asking a court to block the company’s operation and award restitution, profits and legal costs.

Tribe challenges DraftKings’ Florida products

The 72-page complaint argues that DraftKings’ Florida platform is substantially like the sportsbook it operates in states where it holds a sports-betting licence. The Tribe says the Florida version’s prediction-market framing does not change how its sports wagers appear or work for customers.

The complaint focuses on DraftKings’ Super App, which brings together sports wagers, prediction markets and casino-related offerings. It also challenges college-sports prop bets and alleges that the platform does not adequately verify that users meet the minimum age of 21.

The Tribe is seeking an injunction against DraftKings’ Florida operation, along with restitution, disgorgement of profits and its legal fees and costs. The complaint says money recovered would be prioritised for public-interest measures, including consumer protection and problem-gambling prevention and treatment.

The Tribe also points to DraftKings’ advertising as evidence that its products amount to gambling, arguing that references to bonuses and gambling-help resources are inconsistent with the company’s presentation of its Florida offering as a prediction product. Those are allegations in the complaint, not findings by the court.

DraftKings disputes the characterization

A DraftKings spokesperson told the Miami Herald and CBS News Miami that the company’s prediction markets operate in accordance with applicable law. The company also described Pick6 as a peer-to-peer fantasy-sports product based on individual athletes’ performance, rather than sports betting, and said it remained confident in its legal position.

The competing descriptions go to the core of the case: whether DraftKings’ Florida products are prediction or fantasy offerings, as the company maintains, or sports betting covered by Florida law and the compact, as the Tribe alleges. A ruling for the Tribe could require DraftKings to stop offering the challenged products in Florida unless it obtains a route to operate that satisfies the court.

The case adds to legal challenges involving DraftKings’ sports-related products, though the Florida suit raises the Tribe’s distinct claim to exclusive sports-betting rights under the compact.

Compact dispute reaches a new test

The 2021 Seminole Compact provides the framework for the Tribe’s exclusive sports-betting position in Florida. Challenges to the compact over the years have failed in court, according to the Florida Politics report on the new suit. That history informs the Tribe’s confidence, but it does not decide whether DraftKings’ current products violate state law.

Florida’s gaming arrangements have also faced disputes over the scope of tribal authority and state-backed permissions, including a court decision involving a Seminole gaming permit. The DraftKings case instead centers on whether products presented as predictions or fantasy contests fall within the state’s sports-betting restrictions.

The Miami Herald and CBS News Miami describe the lawsuit as a test of how online prediction-market products fit alongside Florida’s sports-betting framework. Similar platforms, including Kalshi and Polymarket, have made the boundary between event-based trading and state gambling law a broader point of dispute. The complaint against DraftKings does not itself resolve the legal status of those other services.

Case awaits further court action

The complaint was filed in Broward County and asks the court to stop DraftKings’ Florida operation. The reports available do not identify a hearing date, an injunction ruling or a deadline for the company’s next response, so the timing of any immediate court action remains unclear.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he had not read the complaint when asked about the case, but indicated that the compact contemplated the Tribe’s ability to offer sports betting in the state. The court will now consider the Tribe’s claims and DraftKings’ position as the dispute proceeds.

The post Florida Lawsuit Puts DraftKings’ Prediction Products to Test appeared first on ReadWrite.

Kalshi, Polymarket and the Coalition for Prediction Markets spent at least $3 million on lobbying and political contributions in 2026, as the companies and state officials fight over who can regulate prediction markets. The platforms say their contracts fall under federal oversight, while states argue they are gambling products governed by state law.

The CFTC has sued states seeking to enforce gambling laws against prediction-market platforms, adding a federal dimension to the dispute. State officials have also organized to preserve their authority, including through a push for state control of prediction markets.

Kalshi builds its lobbying footprint

OpenSecrets’ review of filings found that Kalshi gave $147,500 to the Republican Attorneys General Association and $170,000 to the Democratic Attorneys General Association in the first half of 2026. It also contributed $100,000 to the Republican Governors Association and $150,000 to the Democratic Governors Association during that period.

Kalshi had at least one registered lobbyist in 41 states as of September, with nearly all hired since April. Its disclosed California lobbying spending reached $62,000 in the first half of the year; in New York, payments to two outside lobbying groups and in-house lobbyist Blake Bee were projected to top $400,000 through July 2027.

The company also spent nearly $1 million on federal lobbying through June 30. That included $240,000 paid to Miller Strategies and $120,000 to Lincoln Policy Group, while Polymarket spent $180,000 on federal lobbying in 2026. Kalshi co-founders Tarek Mansour and Luana Lopes Lara collectively contributed about $1 million to Democratic and Republican recipients during the election cycle, according to federal filings cited by OpenSecrets.

Kalshi has disclosed lobbying on the Prediction Market Act, the Protect College Sports Act and the National Defense Authorization Act. The disclosure does not specify the company’s position on those bills; the NDAA provisions described in OpenSecrets’ reporting would address certain prediction-market transactions, trading by Defense Department personnel and bets on military operations.

Federal and state authority remain contested

The legal conflict has grown alongside prediction markets’ rapid expansion over the past two years. The platforms characterize their event contracts as swaps regulated by the CFTC, while states argue they operate like sportsbooks or casinos, which fall under state gambling laws.

In July, 44 state attorneys general signed a letter to the CFTC opposing federal preemption of state gambling rules and describing prediction markets as a new kind of casino. Several lawsuits over the reach of state law have reached federal courts, and judges have split, leaving the question unresolved in the available reporting.

Kalshi’s bipartisan contributions have drawn attention because state attorneys general are among the officials challenging the industry’s regulatory position. A company spokesperson told OpenSecrets that Kalshi supports candidates from both parties. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark told local outlets that political donations had not influenced them.

The wider federal scrutiny of prediction markets also includes an industry coalition. Kalshi joined Robinhood, Coinbase, Crypto.com and Underdog to launch the Coalition for Prediction Markets in December 2025; Polymarket is not a member. The coalition had paid $100,000 to federal lobbyists and spent $50,000 lobbying in California through June 30, according to the reporting.

The central legal question remains open

Kalshi’s state lobbying is concentrated in part on California and New York, where its disclosures cover legislation and work involving executive offices. OpenSecrets’ analysis said the broader state presence could help the company respond if courts ultimately allow states to regulate prediction markets as gambling; Polymarket had not registered state lobbyists at the time of the report.

The dispute is moving through federal courts, but the reporting does not identify a filed Supreme Court petition or scheduled hearing. For now, the core question remains whether federal regulation displaces state gambling laws, while the companies continue lobbying at both levels and state officials press their case in court and in policy discussions.

The post Who Controls Prediction Markets? Federal and State Powers Collide appeared first on ReadWrite.