Churchill Downs Incorporated has asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to order an independent review of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority, escalating scrutiny of the regulator days before HISA provisionally suspended trainer Angel Quiroz over a series of alleged medication and horse-welfare violations.

In an August 28 letter to FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson and Commissioner Mark Meador, Churchill Downs said a series of recent events had raised “significant questions about the governance, transparency, technology controls, and accountability” of HISA. The company asked the FTC, which oversees HISA, to require or initiate a formal independent review covering racing and wagering integrity, non-public information and the safeguarding of sensitive industry data.

The intervention follows controversy over the so-called “Fair Hill Five” betting episode and HISA’s handling of confidential veterinary information accessed through its online portal by horse racing data analyst and owner Marshall Gramm.

The latest enforcement action came on August 31, when HISA served Quiroz with a notice alleging violations of Rules 2215 and 2221. His registration was provisionally suspended from noon EDT on September 1, pending a provisional hearing. The notice says HISA believed there was “clear and convincing evidence” that his actions or inactions presented an immediate threat of serious injury or death to covered horses or riders.

HISA alleges three horses under Quiroz’s care, Bonita Rough, Scootaloo and Tepeyac, returned adverse analytical findings for Albuterol, which is classified as a banned substance unless prescribed in specified circumstances. Each alleged anti-doping violation involving a banned substance carries a potential two-year period of ineligibility and $25,000 fine.

Quiroz suspended after three horses test positive for Albuterol

The first case involved Bonita Rough, whose blood sample was collected after a Vet’s List Workout at Fair Hill Training Center in Maryland on July 10.

According to the notice, laboratory analysis detected Albuterol, while HISA Portal records showed no dispensation, prescription or treatment with the drug during the period Quiroz was the horse’s Responsible Person.

HISA’s filing says Quiroz subsequently told investigators he had nebulised Bonita Rough with Albuterol obtained from the horse’s veterinarian at Gulfstream.

“You stated that you nebulized Bonita Rough with Albuterol that you received from Bonita Rough’s Veterinarian at Gulfstream,” the charge letter quoted in the notice says. “You stated the Veterinarian had prescribed the medication to another horse but informed you that you could use it on Bonita Rough if needed.”

HISA alleges that this amounted to administering a controlled medication outside a valid veterinarian-client-patient relationship. Its notice also says no corresponding Albuterol treatment records existed in the HISA Portal for Bonita Rough, Scootaloo or Tepeyac.

The regulator said Quiroz was notified of the potential Bonita Rough violation on July 28. Thirteen days later, an out-of-competition sample was collected from Scootaloo at Saratoga Race Course and subsequently tested positive for Albuterol, according to the notice.

A sample taken from Tepeyac at Fair Hill on August 13, 16 days after the initial notification concerning Bonita Rough, also returned an adverse analytical finding for Albuterol, HISA said.

HISA said the alleged discovery of banned substances in multiple horses after Quiroz had already been notified of the first case posed an “immediate threat of serious injury or death to Covered Horses or Riders”. The allegations remain subject to the disciplinary process.

Quiroz also faces a separate allegation that he caused Bonita Rough to breach her provisional suspension by posting a timed and reported workout at Fair Hill on July 29.

Churchill Downs says HISA scrutiny goes beyond Gramm

The Quiroz action comes as Churchill Downs is challenging HISA over broader questions about its technology, oversight and disclosure practices.

Its August 28 FTC letter focused heavily on the controversy surrounding Gramm’s access to confidential veterinary and horse-health information through the HISA Portal.

HISA announced on August 17 that it had charged Gramm with multiple rule violations, including fraud, after an investigation into confidential information appearing in past-performance reports for Deterministic and Griffin’s Wharf. HISA said the information should only have been available to the horses’ connections and regulatory veterinarians.

HISA said its investigation, which included an independent forensic cybersecurity analysis, concluded Gramm had deliberately accessed confidential information over approximately six weeks and developed an automated method for obtaining it “at scale” in a way designed to mimic authorized activity and avoid detection.

Gramm has disputed HISA’s characterisation of his conduct. In a public statement, he said the information was available through his authorised HISA account and that he used his own credentials, did not conceal his identity and bypassed no security protocols or safeguards.

“I intend to vigorously defend myself in the HISA proceedings,” Gramm said.

He acknowledged exercising “poor judgment” by failing to alert HISA sooner to the vulnerability after the issue became public, but argued that focusing on him distracted from weaknesses in HISA’s systems.

The Jockey Club separately said Gramm had accessed veterinary information relating to horses he did not own and announced that its stewards would meet to take steps to remove him as a member.

Portal controversy raises questions over HISA security controls

Churchill Downs told the FTC it was not seeking to “excuse, minimize, or prejudge” any alleged misconduct by Gramm. Instead, it argued that the controversy exposed a separate institutional problem.

“But the institutional question is separate and more fundamental: why was such information accessible in the first place?” the company said.

The company stressed what it characterized as a reversal in HISA’s public explanation of the episode. According to the letter, HISA CEO Lisa Lazarus had initially said screenshots circulating online could not have originated from the HISA Portal, before HISA later acknowledged the health information had come from its system.

Churchill Downs said HISA’s subsequent focus on allegations of “fraud”, “misappropriation” and other wrongdoing by Gramm did not answer critical questions about the regulator’s own controls.

Among them were how an authorised user could access records for horses with which they had no legitimate connection, whether similar vulnerabilities existed elsewhere, whether other users accessed comparable information, how long the vulnerability existed and why it was not detected sooner.

HISA, meanwhile, said it had changed its technology systems to prevent similar unauthorised access and was devoting additional resources to protecting confidential information.

“There must be significant consequences for individuals who violate the integrity of our rules and obtain and abuse confidential horse health information,” Lazarus said. “HISA will take every necessary step to fiercely protect the integrity of Thoroughbred racing and ensure that violators of our rules are punished appropriately.”

Churchill Downs seeks independent review of HISA governance

Churchill Downs wants the FTC review to extend well beyond the Gramm case.

Its letter calls for an independent examination of the Fair Hill Five episode, the timing and disclosure of a previously undisclosed banned-substance positive connected with the matter, the HISA Portal vulnerability, whether other users downloaded or shared confidential information, and HISA’s relationships with technology providers.

The company also questioned whether HISA’s procurement, vendor oversight and information-security governance were appropriate for an organisation exercising federally authorised regulatory powers.

“HISA’s legitimacy depends on confidence that it is transparent, accountable, technologically competent, and subject to meaningful oversight,” Churchill Downs said.

It added that restoring confidence would require more than assurances that individual wrongdoers would be punished.

“It will require an independent accounting of what happened, why it happened, whether it could happen again, and whether HISA’s governance and technology infrastructure are adequate for the responsibilities it has been given,” the company said.

HISA’s own materials state that it operates under FTC oversight and that its national racing integrity framework is subject to federal review.

Featured image: HISA via press release

The post Churchill Downs urges FTC review of HISA as regulator suspends trainer over alleged Albuterol violations appeared first on ReadWrite.

FanDuel has voided wagers placed on behalf of Bill Simmons and taken action against his account after the sports media personality admitted using his daughter’s boyfriend to make bets for him in Massachusetts.

The sportsbook said it also reported the matter to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC), which is reviewing Simmons’ admission.

“We became aware of the issue and handled it consistent with our Terms and Conditions and Massachusetts Gaming Commission regulations, including reporting the matter to the MGC, voiding the bets, and actioning the account,” a FanDuel spokesperson said.

FanDuel did not disclose what action it had taken against Simmons’ account. Its terms prohibit customers from allowing other people to access their accounts or wager on their behalf, a practice known as proxy betting. 

The incident is also being examined by Massachusetts regulators.

“The Commission is aware of the comments made on the Bill Simmons Podcast and staff are currently reviewing the matter,” MGC spokesman Thomas Mills told Front Office Sports. 

The Simmons case comes as the MGC is already examining sportsbook VIP programs following a separate FanDuel controversy involving Philadelphia Phillies star Bryce Harper. Harper said a personalised Cameo video he recorded as a holiday greeting was later branded and used by FanDuel as a gambling promotion without his knowledge or consent. 

The MGC said in July that it was aware of the case and was looking into VIP programs “as a whole,” with an update potentially reaching its agenda this fall.

Simmons admits sharing FanDuel login to place bets remotely

Simmons, founder of The Ringer and a former ESPN columnist, disclosed the arrangement while discussing bets he wanted to make from Los Angeles, where online sports betting is not legal.

He explained that his daughter and her boyfriend, Hank, had both recently turned 21 and that Hank was in Massachusetts, where FanDuel operates.

“There was a couple of bets I really wanted to get in,” Simmons said, mentioning UCLA and Houston before describing how he provided access to his account.

“I let Hank log into my FanDuel as me. I get the code to make sure it’s me to my phone, I give him the code, he logs in,” Simmons said.

Simmons said money from successful futures bets the previous year remained in the account and Hank used it to place wagers on his behalf.

“And he’s putting in bets for me, and honestly, it was the closest I’ve ever felt to Hank,” Simmons joked. “It was a real bonding moment for us.”

The arrangement was not limited to one occasion. Simmons said that a week later he contacted Hank again and “we did some more.”

His description amounts to proxy betting, which Massachusetts rules require licensed sportsbooks to prevent. FanDuel’s own terms similarly state that accounts are for personal use and prohibit allowing another person to log in to place a wager on the account holder’s behalf. 

FanDuel voids wagers and reports Simmons to regulator

Simmons’ comments quickly attracted regulatory scrutiny, particularly because he described not only having another person place the wagers but also sharing the authentication code sent to his phone.

Massachusetts law requires sports wagering operators to prevent people from placing wagers as agents or proxies for others. State regulations also provide mechanisms for cancelling wagers involving prohibited bettors.

FanDuel subsequently confirmed that it had reported the matter to the MGC, voided the affected bets and taken action against Simmons’ account.

The case has an additional commercial dimension because FanDuel is The Ringer’s exclusive sports betting partner.

Neither FanDuel nor the MGC has publicly detailed what further consequences, if any, Simmons could face. The commission said only that its staff were reviewing the matter.

Simmons says he misunderstood proxy betting rules

Simmons addressed the controversy again on his podcast after FanDuel acted, saying he had not realised the arrangement violated proxy betting rules.

“I talked about how I got my daughter’s boyfriend to place some bets for me in Massachusetts, because I was in LA,” Simmons said.

“Did not know about the proxy rules. Yeah, there’s some real rules with this stuff,” he added.

Simmons confirmed that the wagers had been voided and said he had learned from the episode.

“Apparently, proxy betting not allowed. I actually thought it was, but that’s fine.”

He continued to joke about the involvement of his daughter’s boyfriend, before acknowledging the consequence for his wagers.

“All those bets went out the window. All that special time I had with Hank, out the window as well.”

Simmons said he expected to be back in Boston and could place wagers himself in the future, concluding: “Lesson learned.” 

The MGC has not yet announced the outcome of its review. 

Featured image: Bill Simmons via BeyondAvgMick on X

The post FanDuel voids Bill Simmons bets after proxy betting admission appeared first on ReadWrite.

Today in prediction market news, we’re following a fresh wave of legal and regulatory developments, including Kalshi urging the Tenth Circuit to block Utah enforcement while its federal appeal plays out, and Ohio and Rhode Island pointing to recent Ninth Circuit rulings as they defend state authority over prediction markets.

We’re also tracking Kalshi’s permanent ban of former Republican New York Congressman George Santos following an investigation into his trading activity, along with the platform’s call for clearer CFTC guardrails as event contract markets grow.

We’ll also be following the latest on enforcement actions involving political trading, Kalshi’s allegations against North Carolina congressional candidate Laurie Buckhout, and developments across prediction markets, regulation, politics, crypto and sports event trading throughout the day.

The post States cite Ninth Circuit rulings, George Santos banned from Kalshi: today in prediction market news LIVE appeared first on ReadWrite.

The Ninth Circuit has called Kalshi’s contracts what its advertising already did: sports betting. 

Kalshi’s marketing department wrote the opening line of its own legal defeat.

“KalshiEX, LLC advertises itself as ‘the first app for legal sports betting in all 50 states’,” Judge Ryan Nelson wrote in the first sentence of the Ninth Circuit’s 50-page opinion.

It appears to be a rough way to learn that ad copy can become evidence.

Kalshi has spent much of its legal battle arguing that its sports contracts are not sports bets but financial derivatives traded on a federally regulated exchange. The court noticed the slight branding inconsistency.

A unanimous three-judge panel ruled on Friday that Kalshi’s sports event contracts are, in substance, sports bets. Because those bets are not “swaps” within the meaning of the Commodity Exchange Act, they do not fall within the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction. Nevada can therefore apply its gaming laws.

Calling a wager an event contract, the court effectively concluded, does not make it any less of a wager. Or, as Nelson put it with an unexpected assist from Shakespeare, “placing sports bets, even when called by another name, is still gambling”.

The ruling threatens the premise that allowed Kalshi to offer sports markets nationwide without collecting state gambling licences like particularly difficult Pokémon.

It also creates a direct split with the Third Circuit, which sided with Kalshi against New Jersey in April. In that court, a sports result could qualify as an event associated with an economic consequence and therefore support a federally regulated swap. In the Ninth Circuit, a parlay remains a parlay even if it arrives wearing a derivatives badge.

The Supreme Court may eventually have to decide which version of reality applies.

Nevada can enforce its gambling laws while litigation continues

Technically, the Ninth Circuit has not issued a final judgment on whether Kalshi’s entire business is lawful.

The case concerns a preliminary injunction. Kalshi wanted the courts to stop Nevada enforcing its gambling laws while the litigation proceeded. The panel upheld the decision to dissolve that protection because Kalshi had not shown that it was likely to win its federal pre-emption arguments.

While the distinction matters legally, commercially, it offers limited comfort.

The opinion devotes dozens of pages to explaining why Kalshi’s sports contracts probably are not swaps, why federal law probably does not displace Nevada’s gambling laws and why the company’s contracts appear to violate an existing CFTC rule.

This is not a court politely reserving judgment. It is a court explaining, at considerable length, why it does not believe the pitch.

The decision is now binding precedent within the Ninth Circuit, which covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, along with US Pacific territories.

That includes California, the largest state without legal sports betting and a prize market for any operator claiming to offer it legally anyway.

Trading against other users does not make a sports bet a swap

Kalshi’s legal distinction is not entirely frivolous.

Traditional sportsbooks generally set odds and take the other side of customers’ bets. Kalshi operates a designated contract market where users trade positions with one another and prices move according to supply and demand.

Brian Quintenz, a Kalshi board member and former CFTC commissioner, told Bloomberg that the ruling had created “more confusion than clarity.” He argued that betting against a house is fundamentally different from trading with other market participants.

Quintenz also said the Commodity Exchange Act was deliberately written to allow derivatives based on events carrying “any financial, commercial or economic consequence,” because those contracts can assist with risk management and price discovery.

The Ninth Circuit’s answer was essentially: nice exchange, still a bet.

The court compared someone wagering at Caesars that the Las Vegas Raiders would win by more than 7.5 points with someone buying a Kalshi contract that pays out if the Raiders win by more than 7.5 points.

Different plumbing, same football game, same uncertain outcome and same prospect of losing the money.

“For Kalshi to deny that its sports event contracts are sports bets under a reasonable person’s understanding is disingenuous,” Nelson wrote.

The company’s offerings included game winners, point spreads, individual player propositions and multi-leg combinations. The latter are functionally parlays, one of the most recognizable and lucrative sportsbook products.

Kalshi may describe users as traders, positions as contracts and odds as prices. The court looked past the vocabulary and concentrated on what customers were doing with their money.

This substance-over-label approach is the ruling’s most important feature. Registering an exchange with the CFTC does not automatically place every product listed on that exchange beyond state control. The product must first be something over which Congress gave the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction.

For sports contracts, the Ninth Circuit said Kalshi had failed that qualifying round.

Self-certification gave Kalshi no federal approval

There is another awkward fact for Kalshi. The CFTC never approved these sports contracts.

Kalshi listed them through self-certification. This allows a registered exchange to tell the CFTC that a new contract complies with federal law and commission rules, then begin offering it without waiting for an affirmative approval order.

Self-certification is useful, but it is not a federal blessing delivered on official stationery.

The Ninth Circuit stressed that the CFTC never placed Kalshi’s sports contracts into a 90-day review process and never issued an order approving them.

Meanwhile, the current version of CFTC Rule 40.11 says registered exchanges “shall not” list certain contracts involving, relating to or referencing gaming. The court interpreted “shall not” using its traditional legal meaning of “do not do this”.

It therefore concluded that Kalshi’s listing of sports contracts was itself unlawful under the existing rule.

The CFTC has proposed rewriting Rule 40.11 to create a contract-by-contract review framework. But proposed regulations have no legal effect, however promising their press releases may sound. Until the rewrite becomes final, the existing prohibition remains in place.

This leaves Kalshi in the unusual position of claiming exclusive protection from a federal regulator whose current rule appears to prohibit the product requiring protection.

Even a completed rewrite may not resolve the deeper problem. Agencies can change regulations, but they cannot grant themselves powers that Congress withheld. If sports contracts are not swaps, the CFTC cannot make them swaps simply by becoming more enthusiastic about prediction markets.

The Ninth Circuit ruling threatens the markets generating almost all revenue for Kalshi

Losing sports would not be a minor product adjustment for Kalshi.

According to the Ninth Circuit, sports accounted for more than 90 per cent of Kalshi’s trades in 2025 and 95 per cent of its revenue.

Election contracts made prediction markets famous. Sports contracts paid the bills.

The court sent the dispute over election markets back to the Nevada district court because their status had not been properly analysed. Election trading therefore remains undecided.

That means the product for which Kalshi is best known survives for another round. The product responsible for almost all its revenue has just taken the loss.

If the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning spreads, Kalshi may have to block sports trading in states that take enforcement action. It could seek state licences, but the suggestion that it merely needs “50 licences” makes the process sound far more convenient than it is.

Some states do not permit sports betting at all. Others limit licences to casinos, tribal operators, lotteries or their selected partners. Each jurisdiction can impose its own rules on age limits, taxes, advertising, college sports, bet types and responsible gambling.

California, for example, does not have a licence sitting behind a counter waiting for Kalshi to fill in a form.

State-by-state compliance would also damage the national liquidity that makes an exchange model attractive. A contract available in New Jersey but unavailable in Nevada, California or Washington is no longer one seamless national market.

Kalshi could end up operating less like the New York Stock Exchange and more like a collection of regional betting shops that happen to share an app.

Under-21 sports trading strengthens the case for state intervention

The legal question has also become entangled with the rather less theoretical subject of young adults betting billions on sport.

CNN estimated that Kalshi users aged 18 to 20 traded approximately $5.4 billion during 2026, including about $3.9 billion on sports and parlays. Kalshi said that age group represented only 3.14 per cent of its total volume, which reached approximately $173 billion.

Both figures can be true. Neither makes the issue disappear.

Financial exchanges generally admit customers from 18, while most state-regulated sportsbooks impose a minimum age of 21. From Kalshi’s perspective, that is the rule applying to its federally regulated market. From the states’ perspective, it looks remarkably like teenagers and young adults accessing sportsbook products through a financial-market loophole.

Add parlays, mobile advertising and the start of the NFL season, and regulators do not have to work especially hard to make the issue politically appealing.

The Ninth Circuit has now given them a strong legal argument as well. Regulators can say that these are sports bets, that federal law does not displace their authority and that Kalshi must follow the same rules as locally licensed operators.

Once the product is legally classified as gambling, the consequences extend far beyond licensing. State rules governing minimum ages, prohibited markets, consumer protection, problem-gambling measures and taxation all come back into play.

Conflicting appellate rulings leave Kalshi operating under two legal realities

The Third and Ninth Circuits reached opposite results largely because they read the same words at different levels of literalism.

The Commodity Exchange Act defines certain swaps by reference to an event or contingency associated with a potential financial, economic or commercial consequence.

The Third Circuit reasoned that a sporting result can fit those words. People trade contracts on an event, money changes hands and the event therefore has an economic consequence.

The Ninth Circuit looked at the wider statutory context. Dodd-Frank was a response to a financial crisis, not a stealth attempt to appoint the CFTC commissioner of every point spread in America.

Congress has repeatedly legislated specifically about gambling, sports betting and tribal gaming. The panel found it implausible that lawmakers quietly transferred nationwide sports-gambling authority to the CFTC through broad language in a Wall Street reform statute.

“The CFTC is not a national gambling regulator,” Nelson wrote. “No one suggested it was until over a decade after the law was passed.”

The court also invoked the major-questions doctrine, under which judges expect clear congressional authorisation before agencies assume powers of vast economic and political significance.

Reading “event” broadly enough to federalise a multibillion-dollar industry traditionally overseen by states and tribes, the panel concluded, would be an elephant in a mousehole.

Or perhaps, in this case, an entire sportsbook in a footnote.

The circuit split increases pressure for Supreme Court review

The circuit split makes Supreme Court review more likely.

Kalshi can first ask the Ninth Circuit panel to reconsider or seek rehearing before a larger en banc court. It can then petition the Supreme Court. The justices may choose to wait for more appellate decisions or for either case to reach a final judgment.

Waiting comes with costs, however. A nationwide online platform cannot easily operate under two incompatible definitions of its central product.

In the Third Circuit, Kalshi has preliminary protection against New Jersey enforcement. In the Ninth Circuit, Nevada can treat substantially identical contracts as unlicensed sports betting.

Similar cases are already moving through courts around the country. Nevada, Massachusetts, Michigan and Washington have obtained orders restricting Kalshi, while the CFTC has intervened against state regulatory action elsewhere.

The legal map is beginning to resemble one of the platform’s own markets, except nobody can agree on the resolution source.

Either outcome would remake the industry

If Kalshi ultimately wins, the consequences could extend well beyond prediction-market start-ups.

A Supreme Court ruling that sports event contracts are federally regulated swaps could remove qualifying products from state gaming control. Major sportsbook operators would have a strong incentive to acquire, partner with or establish CFTC-regulated exchanges.

Why maintain dozens of state licences if the same products can be offered nationally as derivatives?

States could lose licensing fees and gambling taxes. Tribal operators could see their negotiated exclusivity rights weakened. State restrictions on customer age, college betting, advertising and particular wager types might no longer apply to federally listed contracts.

Control would instead sit primarily with the CFTC. That may suit the industry while the commission is supportive, but regulators are not fixed features of the landscape. Administrations change, commissioners leave and political priorities reverse.

A single federal regulator is wonderfully efficient until it dislikes your product.

If Kalshi loses, state and tribal authority survives. But Kalshi’s nationwide sports model does not. The company would need licences or commercial partnerships wherever those routes exist, while withdrawing from jurisdictions where they do not.

The ruling could also encourage courts to stop treating “prediction markets” as one tidy product category. Contracts tied to inflation, interest rates, weather or commercial risks may look like conventional derivatives. Point spreads, parlays and player props look like something available at a sportsbook because they are something available at a sportsbook.

Awards, elections and political mention markets will occupy the uncomfortable territory in between.

The Ninth Circuit has not killed prediction markets. It has challenged the idea that attaching the word “market” to every prediction gives it federal immunity.

Kalshi still has several legal avenues and a supportive CFTC. But it now faces a judicial opinion that quotes its own sports-betting advertisement, compares its argument to hiding an elephant in a mousehole and uses Romeo and Juliet to explain why a bet remains a bet.

As appellate losses go, it was unusually well reviewed.

Featured image: Kalshi / Canva

The post Kalshi Ninth Circuit ruling threatens federal prediction market model appeared first on ReadWrite.

Kalshi wants federal regulators to tackle manipulation in prediction markets by going after misconduct and restricting specific traders, rather than placing sweeping limits on event contracts.

In August 27 written comments, KalshiEX LLC responded to issues aired during the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s inaugural Innovation Advisory Committee meeting on August 20.

The federally regulated exchange concentrated on manipulation, so-called mention markets and questions over whether event contracts connected to corporate results might come under securities rules.

Kalshi, founded in 2018 and designated by the CFTC as a contract market in November 2020, said regulators should treat manipulation much as they would on established exchanges.

“The existence of manipulation and similar trading misconduct on exchanges should lead us to work harder to root out that misconduct, not to ban or restrict legitimate trading on the platform,” Kalshi said.

CME Group’s Terry Duffy had questioned the rapid pace of event-contract self-certifications and warned that some products could be manipulated during the committee meeting.

Kalshi responded that prediction exchanges already face CFTC anti-manipulation requirements alongside surveillance, compliance and disciplinary obligations. The company said its own monitoring has identified suspicious activity for investigation and CFTC referral, while disciplinary cases have included trades valued below $100.

“The solution is to continue pursuing bad actors, not to close markets or delist contracts that innocent market participants, by their own revealed preferences, value and wish to trade,” the company said.

Kalshi favors targeted CFTC safeguards for manipulation risks

Another area drawing scrutiny is mention markets, which settle according to whether someone says a specified word or phrase during an event.

Robinhood’s Vlad Tenev told the committee that some of these contracts could invite manipulation and raise customer-protection concerns. Kalshi acknowledged those risks while opposing a blanket ban.

“Kalshi shares the view that the answer is robust guardrails rather than prohibition,” the company said.

Under Kalshi’s proposed approach, the person whose words determine settlement could not trade the contract. Speechwriters, communications staff, teleprompter operators, producers and others with advance knowledge would also be excluded.

Kalshi said those restrictions already apply through its rules, while screening tools introduced in June prevent known politicians, athletes and league-affiliated people from trading related markets. It wants the CFTC to set comparable minimum requirements across exchanges.

On corporate event contracts, Kalshi also rejected the idea that correlation with a company’s share price automatically makes a binary contract securities-based.

The exchange said these products differ from conventional options because there is no non-refundable premium or exercise right, with buyers and sellers instead taking symmetric risk.

Rather than assigning every crossover product to a single regulatory bucket, Kalshi wants the CFTC and Securities and Exchange Commission to leave exchanges flexibility when contracts touch both jurisdictions. Its broader argument is that federal oversight can cover these products without creating overlapping regulatory regimes.

Featured image: Canva

The post Kalshi urges targeted CFTC rules to curb prediction market manipulation risks appeared first on ReadWrite.

George Santos has been permanently suspended from Kalshi and ordered to pay $71,356 after the prediction market exchange concluded that he manipulated contracts tied to his own attendance at the State of the Union address.

The punishment took effect August 28 and covers trading activity from February 2 through February 25, 2026. According to Kalshi’s compliance department, Santos made several large trades on whether he would attend the event, an outcome he could personally influence.

Kalshi’s rules prohibit members from trading contracts when they have control or influence over the underlying event. The exchange said Santos also made public comments about his attendance plans while buying contracts tied to the same question, with some statements described as false or misleading.

“The Compliance Department found that Santos made these statements with the intent to manipulate the price of the Yes or No contracts that he intended to purchase,” the notice said.

The comments moved contract prices, Kalshi found. Santos ultimately earned $17,839.57 from trading in the markets covered by the disciplinary case.

Santos responded on social media, stating: “Hey @Kalshi  thanks for the lifetime ban from your gambling platform. Let’s see how much longer you guys are around for.”

Kalshi says George Santos profited by manipulating markets he could influence

The exchange cited several violations, including rules against market manipulation, fraud and trading on events a member can influence. Kalshi also cited Rule 3.6(a), covering cooperation with investigations, and Rule 5.17(y), which restricts trading involving material non-public information.

The disciplinary decision follows months of scrutiny around Santos’ prediction-market activity. In June, Santos disputed reports that federal authorities were examining trades connected with his Kalshi account.

“The bases of the accusation is preposterous and I look forward to supplying any information asked of me to any agency that inquires,” Santos wrote.

NPR, the Associated Press and other outlets reported that Kalshi had identified suspicious activity, frozen the account and referred the matter to the Justice Department and Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Federal authorities had not publicly announced charges at that point.

The controversy followed President Donald Trump’s October 2025 decision to commute Santos’ sentence in a separate federal fraud case to time served, with “no further fines, restitution, probation, supervised release, or other conditions.”

Scrutiny of prediction markets has extended beyond Santos. Polymarket strengthened its rules earlier this year, including restrictions involving confidential information and events traders can influence.

“Markets thrive on clarity,” said Neal Kumar, Chief Legal Officer of Polymarket. “These rule enhancements make our expectations abundantly clear for every participant across both platforms and highlight the compliance infrastructure we have already built. As Polymarket continues to scale, we will build on our foundation with clear communication to Polymarket’s users to ensure our markets do what they do best — surface truth.”

Santos had previously defended prediction markets publicly. During a March episode of his YouTube show, he stated, “It is not a crime to do prediction market.”

Featured image: U.S. House Office of Photography via WikiCommons

The post Kalshi permanently suspends George Santos over State of Union market trades appeared first on ReadWrite.

The NFL will head into the 2026 season with three official sports betting partners after signing multi-year deals with DraftKings, FanDuel and Fanatics Betting and Gaming.

DraftKings and FanDuel have held that status since 2021. Fanatics now joins them through a broader relationship with the league that already covers collectibles and official NFL merchandise.

Under the agreements, each operator can use NFL branding to market online and retail sportsbooks. Their partnerships also extend to league events such as the Super Bowl and NFL Draft, including hospitality opportunities and appearances across NFL-owned digital platforms.

All three will get official real-time play-by-play data, proprietary Next Gen Stats and BetVision through Genius Sports, the NFL’s exclusive data distribution partner.

“We are thrilled to have three world-class partners in the sports betting category,” said Renie Anderson, executive vice president and chief revenue officer at the NFL.

NFL broadens betting partnerships at home and overseas

Each operator must follow NFL integrity rules while cooperating on information sharing, advocacy and responsible gambling. That includes avoiding wagers the league considers objectionable, including bets connected to officiating, injuries, advance information or outcomes one person could easily manipulate.

DraftKings remains the Official Daily Fantasy Sports Partner, continuing a relationship dating to 2019, while Fanatics becomes an Official Online Casino Marketing Partner.

“For the last five years, the NFL has been an important partner,” said Christian Genetski, president at FanDuel.

Genius Sports also monitors betting activity for suspicious patterns. Every NFL club has an Integrity Representative, generally a retired FBI agent or senior law enforcement official, while players, coaches, officials and staff receive annual Gambling Policy training.

The league’s responsible betting work includes partnerships with the National Council on Problem Gambling, Responsible Gambling Council and International Center for Responsible Gaming. Grants to the National Council totaled $6.2 million in 2021 and $6.4 million in 2024.

The domestic agreements follow the NFL’s recent expansion of sportsbook partnerships overseas. Paddy Power became the league’s Official Sportsbook Partner in the UK and Ireland under a one-year agreement announced in 2025, covering online and retail promotion, digital activity and activations around games in London and Dublin.

“We are delighted to partner with Paddy Power as the NFL’s official sports betting partner in the UK and Ireland. Their innovative approach to fan engagement and their passion for sports entertainment align perfectly with our goals as we continue to grow the game across the region.”

Spain also gained an official betting partner in 2025, with bwin signing a multi-year agreement ahead of the NFL’s first regular-season game in Madrid.

“Partnering with the NFL is an exciting milestone for bwin in Spain, in a year when the league is celebrating its first game in Spain at the Santiago Bernabéu, one of the great temples of world sport,” says Curry Sloan, managing director for Canada, Iberia, and Latin America.

“As one of the world’s most exciting sports leagues, the NFL shares our passion for competition, entertainment, and fan engagement. Together, we will deliver unforgettable experiences and bring fans in Spain even closer to the action, always with a focus on safe and responsible gaming.”

Featured image: Canva

The post NFL expands betting partnerships with DraftKings, FanDuel and Fanatics for 2026 appeared first on ReadWrite.

Kalshi is disputing a New York Times report about the expanding legal and political battle over prediction markets, including questions about sports betting, taxes, consumer safeguards and federal intervention.

The company responded August 27 as 20 states face active litigation involving Kalshi or other prediction markets. Separately, 44 states signed a letter to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission arguing the platforms have sidestepped state regulation and taxes.

“The New York Times asked a series of questions, then ignored almost every answer that didn’t align with the narrative that was being pushed,” Kalshi said in its response.

The Times cited a Tax Foundation estimate that states could collect at least $2 billion annually by taxing prediction markets like sportsbooks. Kalshi questioned the estimate and pointed to North Carolina, where online sportsbooks generated about $130 million in 2025 tax revenue.

“Federally regulated companies are subject to state taxes – we have never said otherwise,” the company said. “This is how almost all industries in America operate.”

Kalshi challenges Times claims as regulatory fight intensifies

States contend sports-event contracts amount to gambling. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, after securing a preliminary August court victory, said customers can wager on sporting outcomes. “That’s the same thing as gambling,” he said.

“It’s flat-out wrong to say that Kalshi is ‘indistinguishable from traditional sports betting,’” the company said.

Kalshi says its exchange uses bids, asks, order books and other trading tools, while federal rules address manipulation. It also offers trading breaks, self-exclusion and deposit limits and works with the National Council on Problem Gambling and Birches Health.

North Carolina’s budget permits CFTC-registered prediction markets and taxes them at 6%, compared with 23% for sportsbooks. The Times reported Kalshi lobbyist Jim Harrell helped shape that legislation.

“This is literally what lobbyists do – represent client interests and help inform legislators regarding potential legislation,” the company said.

Kalshi says comparing rates ignores different economics: sportsbooks had a 10.2% national hold in 2025, versus roughly 1% blended prediction-market fees.

“Sportsbooks’ margins are 10x more than those of prediction markets, so you can’t compare tax rates, because you’re taxing different amounts,” Kalshi said. “So the focus should be less on the tax percentage number and more on the actual revenue directed to the state.”

The CFTC has sued nine states this year, all led by Democratic governors, and intervened in Michigan and New York disputes.

“It’s unprecedented and overly aggressive for states to try to shut down a federally licensed exchange,” the company said. “It’s like if North Carolina wanted to shut down the stock market.”

Donald Trump Jr., an adviser to Kalshi who is also involved with Polymarket, has argued for CFTC oversight. Kalshi says he advises on marketing, not regulation.

Court outcomes remain divided, including losses for Kalshi and a Third Circuit victory.

“We won in the Third Circuit,” the company said. “And no, we do not agree with that characterization. The legal split is currently close to 50-50.”

Featured image: Wally Gobetz via Flickr / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The post Kalshi challenges Times report amid widening prediction market regulatory battles appeared first on ReadWrite.

A federal judge has restarted Kalshi’s lawsuit against Montana officials after months of delays, while rejecting the prediction-market operator’s bid for immediate protection from state enforcement.

U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy refused another request from both sides to pause the case and gave Montana 21 days to answer or otherwise respond to Kalshi’s complaint. “No extensions of time will be granted,” Molloy wrote in the August 27 order. The judge also denied Kalshi’s preliminary injunction request without prejudice.

Kalshi brought the case on April 12 against Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen and other state officials. The company says Montana “intru[ded] into the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate derivatives trading on exchanges overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.” It wants declaratory relief along with preliminary and permanent injunctions.

Kalshi’s event contracts allow customers to trade on real-world outcomes including economic data, elections and sports. The company operates a federally regulated exchange and argues those contracts fall under federal derivatives law rather than individual state gambling rules.

Montana’s Gambling Control Division took a different view. An April 6 cease-and-desist letter said Kalshi’s activities amounted to illegal gambling under state law and warned of possible enforcement. Kalshi filed suit after receiving the letter and later sought an injunction.

Nine days after starting the lawsuit, Kalshi asked Molloy for preliminary relief. On that same day, however, both sides jointly requested that court deadlines be paused.

Kalshi delays weaken case against Montana enforcement as preliminary injunction bid denied

Molloy approved the first pause on April 22, with an update due June 22. The parties then sought another 60 days, which he granted. When the next deadline arrived August 21, they requested a third stay rather than providing the required status update.

It offered little explanation beyond saying the parties “have conferred and believe a further continuation of the stay is appropriate.”

Molloy said that was not enough. Federal procedural rules require requests for court orders to “state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order.”

With no specific justification supplied for another delay, Molloy found the parties had failed to establish good cause. He lifted the stay and said a preliminary pretrial conference would be scheduled separately.

Those repeated pauses also worked against Kalshi’s injunction request. To secure preliminary relief, the company needed to show, among other factors, that irreparable harm was likely without court intervention rather than merely possible.

Molloy found Kalshi’s litigation choices difficult to square with its claim that urgent intervention was necessary.

“Kalshi’s repeated agreement to stay this matter for months at a time fatally undermines its ability to make such a showing on the current record here,” Molloy wrote.

The denial is without prejudice, leaving Kalshi able to revisit the issue. For now, the broader federal-state fight over who can regulate its prediction contracts will proceed, and Montana must respond within 21 days.

Featured image: Kalshi / Canva

The post Montana judge ends Kalshi lawsuit stay, rejects preliminary injunction request again appeared first on ReadWrite.

The Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) is open to stopping players from appearing in personalized sportsbook marketing connected with VIP or tier programs. At the same time, it wants MLB to support wider restrictions on some bets tied to events during games.

MLBPA General Counsel Jeffrey Perconte outlined that position in an August 24 response to Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Reps. Paul Tonko and Valerie Foushee. The lawmakers had written to the union on August 10 after a personalized Bryce Harper video was reportedly sent to a FanDuel VIP customer struggling with gambling addiction.

The issue has become part of collective bargaining between MLB and the union, including negotiations over the Sports Betting Policy covering players. The MLBPA believes players should retain opportunities for sportsbook endorsements similar to commercial relationships involving MLB and its clubs, but says those deals need boundaries.

“We do not believe the ability of players to enter into such agreements should be unlimited, however,” Perconte wrote. “For example, we are prepared to support CBA restrictions that ban players from participating in personalized marketing campaigns connected to a VIP or tier program.”

MLBPA backs VIP marketing ban, seeks wider in-game betting limits

Beyond advertising, the MLBPA wants the league to help pursue restrictions on proposition bets and event contracts determined by in-game performance. Its proposal could cover wagers involving hits, runs, home runs, individual pitches or at-bats and whether a player suffers an injury.

“And while MLB has thus far rejected this proposal, we intend to continue pursuing it,” Perconte wrote.

The union returned to that dispute when addressing whether fan protection should come before gambling revenue.

“MLB has thus far balked, but negotiations remain ongoing and players intend to continue to push this proposal,” the MLBPA said.

MLB has previously acted on narrower microbetting concerns. In November 2025, authorized gaming operators began limiting pitch-level wagers to $200 and excluding those bets from parlays, after the league said such markets created heightened integrity risks.

Under the Sports Betting Policy negotiated in 2022, players cannot wager on baseball, arrange prohibited bets through others, knowingly benefit from impermissible wagers or provide confidential information for betting purposes. A 2025 supplement clarified that baseball prediction markets are also covered. Several players suspended in 2024 for betting-policy violations were reinstated after serving their penalties.

Sportsbook promotions remain permitted in some circumstances, and the union says most player-related campaigns use names, images, highlights or photographs passively. Existing rules, however, do not specifically address VIP programs.

“Our current policies do not explicitly reference or otherwise address the types of ‘predatory VIP programs’ described in your August 10th letter,” Perconte wrote. “The Association stands ready to make proposals in an effort to fill that gap.”

The MLBPA also plans to add personalized-marketing risks to its regular player education on addiction, mental health and prohibited conduct.

“As noted above, the Association is willing to adopt new restrictions banning player participation in personalized marketing campaigns that operate as part of a VIP or tier program,” Perconte wrote.

Featured image: Canva

The post MLB players union backs VIP sportsbook marketing ban amid CBA talks appeared first on ReadWrite.

Matt Gogel will spend six months away from PGA Tour-sanctioned competition after the Tour determined that the PGA Tour Champions member had been betting on golf competitions.

The PGA Tour announced the discipline Wednesday (August 26), saying Gogel broke its Integrity Program by wagering on PGA Tour competition. The organization said none of those bets involved a tournament in which Gogel was competing.

His suspension took effect August 23, 2026, and will remain in place through February 22, 2027. Until that penalty ends, Gogel is barred from playing in events sanctioned by the PGA Tour.

Details about which competitions drew Gogel’s wagers were not disclosed. The Tour also gave no information about the individual bets, although it said Gogel fully cooperated with the process that resulted in the suspension.

Matt Gogel says PGA betting involved small wagers on events he did not play

In his own statement, Gogel acknowledged betting on golf during 2024 and 2025. He characterized the wagers as small recreational bets and said he had not realized they ran afoul of Tour policy.

“In 2024 and 2025, I unknowingly violated the PGA TOUR policy by placing small recreational wagers on golf. I want to be clear that these wagers were not placed on regular PGA TOUR events, PGA TOUR Champions events or any tournament in which I participated.

“I would never knowingly violate the integrity of the game of golf. I made an honest mistake and I look forward to playing in 2027 on the PGA TOUR Champions.”

The wording of the two statements leaves a distinction that neither side explained further. In announcing its finding, the Tour described Gogel’s bets as wagers on “PGA TOUR competition.” Gogel, meanwhile, specifically ruled out regular PGA Tour tournaments, PGA Tour Champions tournaments and any event where he was part of the field.

Neither statement offered further details that would clarify what competitions fell within that difference in terminology.

With the six-month sanction now underway, Gogel will miss PGA Tour-sanctioned competition through the rest of 2026. His ineligibility carries into February before ending ahead of his possible return later in 2027.

Betting conduct for people subject to PGA Tour rules is covered by the organization’s Integrity Program. The Tour concluded Gogel’s activity violated those restrictions despite its finding that he never wagered on an event he played.

Gogel accepted that he made the bets while maintaining that he was unaware they were prohibited. He also emphasized that he would never deliberately do anything that threatened golf’s integrity.

The disciplinary decision became public August 26, which was three days after the suspension had already started. Once the penalty expires in February, Gogel plans to resume competing on PGA Tour Champions in 2027.

Featured image: mutualgolf via YouTube

The post Matt Gogel suspended six months after betting on PGA Tour competitions appeared first on ReadWrite.

Connecticut is suing Kalshi, asking a state court to stop the prediction market from offering sports contracts to residents without a gambling license.

Attorney General William Tong announced the lawsuit Wednesday alongside Department of Consumer Protection Commissioner Bryan T. Cafferelli and Gov. Ned Lamont. Connecticut wants an injunction blocking Kalshi from continuing to offer contracts that officials consider unlicensed sports betting.

On Kalshi’s exchange, customers trade yes-or-no contracts tied to future events. Its sports markets can involve game and season winners, league standings, win totals, point spreads, scores and individual player statistics.

State officials argue those products function as sports wagers, meaning Kalshi must follow Connecticut’s gambling licensing requirements and consumer safeguards. According to the complaint, Kalshi has made sports contracts available to Connecticut residents through its website, app and other channels since January 2025 without obtaining or seeking a Department of Consumer Protection license.

“Sports event contracts are no different than sports betting and are not magically shielded by federal law from Connecticut’s commonsense consumer protection laws,” said Attorney General Tong.

Connecticut sues Kalshi as federal challenge fails to halt gambling enforcement

Connecticut regulators sent cease-and-desist notices to Kalshi, Robinhood and Crypto.com in December 2025, accusing the platforms of offering unlicensed online gambling.

Regulators told the companies to stop promoting or providing sports event contracts and other unauthorized gambling products in Connecticut. The orders also required them to allow customers in the state to withdraw money from their accounts.

Kalshi sued Connecticut in response, arguing that its event contracts are federally regulated derivatives and that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has exclusive authority over them under the Commodity Exchange Act.

U.S. District Judge Vernon Oliver rejected Kalshi’s request for a preliminary injunction earlier in August. Kalshi appealed to the Second Circuit and sought temporary protection from Connecticut enforcement while that appeal proceeded.

On August 19, Circuit Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam denied that temporary request. The appeals court left Kalshi’s broader injunction motion for a three-judge panel to consider and did not decide the underlying dispute.

The CFTC has separately sued Connecticut and two other states, similarly arguing that federal law gives the commission exclusive authority over prediction markets. Connecticut has moved to dismiss that case.

Connecticut’s latest complaint also takes aim at Kalshi’s marketing. Officials allege the company characterized its activities as “legal in all 50 states” while presenting sports contracts as both investments and lawful alternatives to licensed sportsbooks.

The state says its gambling framework provides protections covering minors, problem gambling, customer money and personal data. Connecticut legalized regulated sports betting in 2021.

Featured image: Kalshi / Canva

The post Connecticut sues Kalshi over sports contracts offered without state gambling license appeared first on ReadWrite.

Novig and New Mexico officials want to pause their federal court battle over sports event contracts until August 2027, giving another case time to address a legal issue at the heart of their dispute.

Ludlow Exchange LLC, which operates as Novig, joined the New Mexico defendants in asking the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on Tuesday (August 25) to stay proceedings through August 13, 2027. Novig sued Attorney General Raul Torrez and New Mexico Gaming Control Board members on August 6 for declaratory and injunctive relief.

The filing, seen by ReadWrite, came after discussions on August 17 and August 20. Novig said it planned to seek a preliminary injunction unless both sides could arrange a temporary pause.

A separate Commodity Futures Trading Commission lawsuit against New Mexico is driving that request. The CFTC sued on June 12 and sought a preliminary injunction six days afterward. Injunction briefing finished July 30, followed by briefing on the defendants’ dismissal motion on August 7.

CFTC lawsuit puts Novig dispute with New Mexico and Massachusetts on hold

Both sides expect the CFTC litigation to address federal preemption, which also sits at the center of Novig’s case. They said a stay “would promote judicial economy and limit duplicative litigation.”

New Mexico would also hold off on specified enforcement during the pause. Officials said they “will not initiate, pursue, or maintain any civil or criminal enforcement action” over Novig listing sports-related event contracts on its designated contract market until at least 14 days after the stay finishes.

By July 30, 2027, both sides would tell the court whether the pause should continue. Once it ends, they would have 14 days to suggest a briefing schedule, while state officials would get 60 days to respond to Novig’s complaint.

Novig will voluntarily dismiss the Gaming Control Board defendants without prejudice. Those officials likewise agreed not to pursue Novig separately from the attorney general before the stay expires.

The parties stressed that the arrangement “does not resolve any claim or defense asserted in this action,” leaving their broader legal positions intact.

Novig’s New Mexico suit is part of a wider federal campaign launched after its approval as a CFTC Designated Contract Market. The company filed cases against New York, Massachusetts, New Mexico and Washington, arguing its sports event contracts are federally regulated derivatives rather than state-regulated sports wagers.

In Massachusetts, Attorney General Andrea Campbell has said “any company that wants to be in the sports gaming business in Massachusetts must play by our rules.” Novig argues federal law overrides those requirements.

The Massachusetts case is now paused too. U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV granted a joint stay on Aug. 24 while KalshiEX LLC exhausts state appellate rights involving a preliminary injunction obtained by the Massachusetts Attorney General. The order also gave defendants 60 days after the stay to respond and dismissed several defendants without prejudice.

New York, meanwhile, opposed Novig’s emergency request, arguing that “Plaintiff’s failure to provide notice therefore amounts to an attempt to obtain an ex parte TRO … and should not be entertained by this Court.”

Featured image: Novig / Canva

The post Novig and New Mexico seek yearlong pause in prediction market lawsuit appeared first on ReadWrite.

The Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas has opened Naskila Casino Leggett, giving Polk County its first operating piece of a much larger casino resort planned for the property.

Tribal members marked the occasion Monday (August 24) with a Tribal Membership Opening Day ceremony. Doors opened to everyone Tuesday and visitors began lining up early.

Operating around the clock, the temporary casino offers 300 electronic gaming machines and a dining facility. Local reporting says the operation has brought roughly 100 new jobs to the area.

For tribal leaders, Leggett also signals a new period of economic development after years spent fighting in court over gaming. In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Texas could not apply its gaming laws to stop electronic bingo on tribal land when state law did not prohibit the activity outright. Texas later abandoned its longstanding lawsuit against the Tribe.

Naskila Casino Leggett opening signals wider tribal gaming and economic expansion

Construction is already underway nearby on the permanent Naskila Casino Resort, which broke ground in June. Plans cover roughly 685,000 square feet, with about 3,400 electronic bingo machines and a 366-room hotel.

Guests are also expected to find restaurants, bars and lounges, a resort-style pool complex and around 35,000 square feet for conferences and events. A grand ballroom is designed for crowds of up to 1,000 people. The opening of the first phase is targeted for late 2028.

The development builds on Naskila’s existing operation near Livingston, which has been running since 2016. Tribal officials point to its wider role in the East Texas economy, including jobs and spending with regional businesses. An economic-impact study cited by the Tribe put that contribution at about $251.7 million annually.

Federal agencies had previously confirmed the Leggett property could host gaming. The land has been held in trust since 2001, and tribal membership approved the location in September 2025.

The federal status stands in contrast with another current tribal gaming dispute. In California, the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians sued the Interior Department on August 7 after officials reversed their position on gaming eligibility for roughly 160 acres in Vallejo.

Interior had approved that property in January 2025 as “restored lands” under federal gaming law, using broader readings of “occupancy” and “vicinity”. After another review, the department reversed course July 30. Scotts Valley called that decision “arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, unsupported by the administrative record” and said it was “compelled to suspend gaming operations” at its Class II facility. The tribe had pursued a temporary “preview casino” while the dispute continued.

In Leggett, meanwhile, the temporary casino is operating while construction moves ahead. The Alabama-Coushatta Tribe called its membership celebration “a new chapter” as it prepared to welcome the wider public.

Featured image: Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas via Facebook

The post Alabama-Coushatta opens temporary Naskila Casino as permanent resort takes shape nearby appeared first on ReadWrite.

Nebraska voters will get a say on two online sports wagering proposals in the November 2026 general election. The Secretary of State’s office said August 21 that both petition campaigns gathered enough valid signatures to make the ballot.

“The Secretary of State’s office announced today that signature thresholds have been met for both the Online Sports Wagering Authorization Constitutional Amendment petition and the Online Sports Wagering Regulation Initiative petition to appear on the 2026 general election ballot,” the office said in a release.

For the constitutional amendment, organizers needed signatures from 10% of registered voters statewide, plus 5% of registered voters in at least 38 counties. Officials verified at least 138,473 signatures, with the county requirement met in at least 64 counties.

The statutory Online Sports Wagering Regulation Initiative needed signatures from 7% of registered voters statewide and the same 5% threshold in 38 counties. At least 96,918 signatures were verified, and organizers cleared the county requirement in at least 55 counties.

Online sports betting debate now moves to Nebraska voters

County election officials were not required to keep reviewing every submitted signature after the campaigns had safely exceeded the minimum.

“The Elections Division instructed county election offices to conclude signature verification after the number of valid signatures met the 110% threshold as permitted in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32-1409,” the Secretary of State’s office said about each petition.

Under Nebraska law, county officials compare petition information with voter registration records and confirm that signers were properly registered. The state can stop that process once county reports show “signatures in excess of one hundred ten percent of the number necessary to place the issue on the ballot have been verified,” allowing remaining checks to end.

Once those county reviews are complete, the Secretary of State determines whether a petition satisfies state requirements. The statute says, “If the petition is found to be valid and sufficient, the Secretary of State shall proceed to place the measure on the general election ballot.”

The ballot push follows earlier debate in the Legislature over expanding sports betting. In March 2025, lawmakers considered several proposals, including Sen. Elliott Bostar’s LR20CA, which sought a constitutional amendment allowing licensed racetracks to partner with online sportsbooks. Supporters argued Nebraska was losing potential tax revenue to illegal betting and neighboring states where online wagering is legal.

Opponents focused on addiction and financial harm. “If they want to bet on sports, they can, but this is trying to force it onto every device in the state,” said Nate Grasz of the Nebraska Family Alliance, as reported by SBC Americas.

“Anybody who wants to find online gambling can already find it,” added Mike Sciandra of the Nebraska Gamblers Assistance Program.

Public hearings on the certified measures will now be held in all three congressional districts, with dates and locations coming later. The state will also prepare an informational brochure.

Officials are still reviewing two other petition campaigns. The ballot must be certified by September 11. “All petitions will be processed and announced by that date,” the office said.

Featured image: Canva

The post Nebraska online sports betting measures qualify for November 2026 ballot vote appeared first on ReadWrite.

Kalshi is widening its footprint in Major League Baseball (MLB) after agreeing to exclusive, multi-year brand partnerships with five clubs. The prediction market platform announced the deals on Tuesday (August 25).

The Atlanta Braves, Boston Red Sox, Los Angeles Dodgers, San Diego Padres and San Francisco Giants are all part of the agreements. Kalshi will serve as a prediction market partner for each team, with its brand appearing in stadiums and across social media, digital promotions and radio. Fans will also see activities and offers tied directly to the platform.

The expansion comes as baseball trading has surged on Kalshi. The company says trading volume connected with the sport is now 36 times higher than it was one year earlier.

Kalshi and MLB push comes as prediction markets gain wider acceptance

At Dodger Stadium, the partnership will give Kalshi a particularly visible presence. LED signs carrying its branding will be displayed around the ballpark, while the company is also getting naming rights for the stadium’s Gold Glove Bar.

Dodgers fans can expect Kalshi-specific offers as well. During the season, the agreement will bring exclusive fan activities to Centerfield Plaza.

“The idea is that fans are already engaging with their favorite teams on Kalshi, so it only makes sense to extend that fandom to some of the most beloved baseball teams in America,” said Adam Barrick, Head of Sports Partnerships at Kalshi.

The agreements arrive during a shift in MLB’s relationship with prediction markets. In July, the New York Mets announced a multi-year partnership with Novig that the companies described as the first deal between an MLB franchise and a prediction market company.

At league level, MLB has already chosen Polymarket as its exclusive prediction market exchange partner. MLB and the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission also signed a memorandum of understanding in March covering information sharing, market monitoring and efforts to spot fraud or manipulation involving baseball event contracts.

The growing commercial involvement comes with restrictions for people inside the sport. During the 2025 season, MLB circulated guidance telling major and minor league players not to participate in baseball-related prediction market contracts, including products offered by Kalshi and Polymarket. The league treated that activity as prohibited under its long-standing betting rules.

Kalshi, founded in 2018, runs an exchange where customers trade contracts based on event outcomes. The company presents prediction markets as a way of showing changing expectations about future events in real time.

Featured image: Kalshi via press release

The post Kalshi signs five MLB team deals as prediction markets expand further appeared first on ReadWrite.

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has predicted that the escalating battle over prediction markets will ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court, as states, federal regulators and the fast-growing industry clash over whether sports event contracts should be treated as federally regulated derivatives or gambling subject to state law.

Christie, now a strategic adviser to the American Gaming Association, made the comments during an appearance on CNBC’s Squawk Box, where he criticized the regulatory framework surrounding prediction markets and argued that the products are encroaching on states’ longstanding authority over sports wagering.

“What I know is the policy is wrong. It’s injurious to the states,” Christie said. “You’ve got 1.3 billion in tax revenue to states that have already been siphoned off by the predictive market companies, and they refuse to allow themselves to be regulated.”

Christie also raised concerns about the accessibility of sports-related prediction contracts to younger customers, contrasting the rules with those governing traditional sportsbooks.

“They’re marketing to college students,” Christie said. “They’re marketing to 18-year-olds, 19-year-olds who, in the sports gaming business, are not allowed to bet, they are allowed to bet on the predictive market.”

Asked what would happen if the state-regulation side of the dispute ultimately loses in court, Christie said he sees two possible paths: congressional intervention or a Supreme Court ruling.

“I think it’s going to go to the Supreme Court,” Christie said. He suggested that legislation such as the CLARITY Act could potentially settle the jurisdictional question by establishing that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission does not regulate sports gaming.

Otherwise, Christie argued, the courts will have to decide.

“The Supreme Court, I think, has been pretty clear on this—and it was our case that brought this out—that this is a state issue, and that the states are regulating effectively and there’s no reason for the federal government to come in,” he said.

CFTC and prediction market companies push back

The CFTC takes the opposite position. In February, the regulator said in a Ninth Circuit filing that it has “exclusive jurisdiction” over U.S. commodity derivatives markets, including event contracts commonly known as prediction markets. CFTC Chairman Michael Selig said efforts by states to regulate those markets disregard federal law and precedent.

It has put Christie directly at odds with Selig.

In the same month, Christie argued that federal intervention infringes on both states that permit sports betting and those that prohibit it.

“Violating the rights of states who have been regulating sports betting and the rights of the states who oppose sports betting is not the purview of another alphabet soup federal agency,” Christie wrote on X. “Yes I am standing up for the rights of all 50 states. Proud of it.”

Selig responded by accusing Christie of pursuing a national campaign against the industry, writing: “Chris Christie is leading a campaign to ban American Prediction Markets in states across the country. We’re simply not going to allow that to happen.”

The CFTC has since continued to defend federal preemption. In April, the commission intervened in litigation in Massachusetts and said Congress had given it sole authority over commodity derivatives markets, including prediction markets. By May, the agency was also seeking to block Rhode Island from applying state gambling laws to CFTC-registered contract markets, adding to disputes involving Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Minnesota, New York and other states.

Chris Christie disputes claims about enforcement and court losses as prediction markets face lawsuits

The argument intensified again after Christie publicly questioned the CFTC’s ability to police the markets.

Robert DeNault, Kalshi’s head of enforcement, responded by accusing Christie of getting two important points wrong.

“Good policy and legal debates turn on facts, not fiction. But Governor Christie’s claims aren’t based on facts,” DeNault wrote in the post provided.

On Christie’s assertion that the CFTC lacks investigators, DeNault said: “The CFTC and the exchanges it regulates have entire teams of investigators — we talk all the time.”

There is evidence of significant exchange-level enforcement activity. Kalshi told NPR that it launched more than 150 insider-trading investigations, blocked more than 100 attempted insider trades and referred at least 20 cases to law enforcement during the first quarter of 2026. DeNault has also described Kalshi’s surveillance and investigative systems, while acknowledging that “no system is perfect.”

DeNault also challenged Christie’s characterization of the industry’s court record. According to DeNault, Christie claimed prediction markets had lost “85%” of their cases.

“The legal split is much closer to 50-50,” DeNault wrote, citing the Third Circuit and courts in New Jersey, Minnesota, Tennessee and Arizona on one side of the developing legal divide, and courts in New York, Massachusetts, Nevada, Wisconsin, Utah, Michigan and Connecticut on the other.

The competing claims underscore how unsettled the law remains, with litigation developing across multiple jurisdictions rather than producing a single nationwide answer.

Utah joins the states’ rights challenge

Christie has found a prominent ally in Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, who has similarly rejected the idea that sports event contracts should escape state gambling regulation simply because they are offered through federally regulated exchanges.

In February, Cox mocked the CFTC’s derivatives argument, saying he did not remember the commission having authority over the “derivative market” for “LeBron James rebounds.”

Cox was unequivocal about how he views the products: “These prediction markets you are breathlessly defending are gambling—pure and simple.” He added that they “have no place in Utah” and pledged to use the resources available to him as governor to fight the federal position in court.

The fundamental question is one now being litigated around the country: whether event contracts offered by federally regulated exchanges are derivatives governed by federal commodities law or, particularly when based on sporting events, function as sports wagers that must comply with state licensing, consumer-protection and age requirements.

Trump throws White House support behind prediction markets

President Donald Trump has firmly backed the federal-regulation side of the argument.

In May, Trump declared that “it is critically important that the CFTC’s exclusive authority over Prediction Markets is maintained, and that they will thrive.” He described prediction markets as a “new form of Financial Market” and praised Selig’s leadership of the CFTC.

Trump also singled out Christie and other state-level opponents of the federal approach, writing: “We cannot have SCUM like Chris Christie, Letitia James, Tim Walz, and JB Pritzker setting the rules!”

That places Christie, a former Republican presidential candidate, on the opposite side of the regulatory dispute from the Trump administration despite the participation of Republican officials such as Cox in the state-led pushback.

His argument remains that sports wagering is a matter for the states—and that if Congress does not settle the issue first, the Supreme Court eventually will.

Featured image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0

The post Chris Christie says prediction market fight is headed for Supreme Court as states challenge CFTC appeared first on ReadWrite.

Independent senator David Pocock has accused the Albanese government of undermining its own pledge to break the connection between gambling and sport, after it emerged betting company logos could remain on professional sporting jerseys until the end of 2031.

Children across Australia could continue seeing gambling brands on the jerseys of their sporting heroes for more than five years under transitional provisions in the federal government’s gambling reforms.

The legislation bans wagering company logos on professional sports jerseys, but existing sponsorship arrangements can continue during a five-year transition period, potentially keeping the branding in place until December 31, 2031.

The delay has drawn a sharp response from ACT independent senator David Pocock, who has been campaigning for a comprehensive ban on gambling advertising and has called on sporting clubs to voluntarily abandon betting sponsorships sooner.

“We are in an absurd situation where by the time of the legislation’s three-year statutory review, jerseys may still have betting logos on them,” Pocock said, according to The Guardian.

Pocock also called on clubs to end their existing jersey sponsorship arrangements “at the earliest opportunity.”

Responding on social media, Pocock said the extended transition was incompatible with the government’s stated ambition of separating gambling from Australian sport.

“The Govt has talked a lot about breaking the nexus between gambling and sport but allowing betting company logos on team jerseys until potentially as late as 2035 won’t do that,” Pocock wrote.

“We are in an absurd situation where by the time of the legislation’s three-year statutory review, players may still be wearing these logos.”

The government says the transition period is intended to balance its reforms with existing commercial agreements. Communications minister Anika Wells said one unnamed sporting club has a jersey sponsorship deal extending until 2031.

“In trying to strike a balance here between grandfathering existing arrangements and ensuring viability, that’s what we got to,” Wells said.

Wells said she hoped sporting organizations would end wagering sponsorships earlier where possible, but argued those decisions ultimately rested with the clubs.

The controversy follows the government’s package of gambling advertising reforms, which includes a new national “Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register.” The register is intended to give Australians a single mechanism to opt out of wagering advertising from online content providers and will be administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

However, the reforms stop short of the comprehensive advertising ban recommended by the late Labor MP Peta Murphy’s landmark parliamentary inquiry.

Pocock has argued that the legislation will “not break the connection between sport and gambling” and will fail to sufficiently reduce children’s exposure to wagering advertising.

The criticism predates the latest dispute over jersey sponsorships.

Earlier this month, Pocock tabled a petition signed by more than 700 Canberrans calling for a full ban on gambling advertising. More than 16,000 emails had also been sent to federal parliamentarians through his Stop Gambling Ads campaign.

“The major political parties are showing just how captured they are by vested interests. They are listening to donors and lobbyists rather than experts and communities,” Pocock said at the time.

He said the legislation represented a “weak, watered down bill” that would not adequately protect children from what he described as an “extraordinarily predatory industry”.

The senator has also linked the gambling debate to broader concerns about lobbying and the influence of industry over federal policymaking. In a separate social media post promoting an ABC Four Corners investigation, Pocock said recent events had demonstrated “the power of vested interests over public policy” and called for tougher lobbying laws and restrictions on the “revolving door” between government and industry.

Pocock condemns gambling jerseys amid reform backlash

The Alliance for Gambling Reform has similarly attacked the final package, saying the agreement between Labor and the Coalition amounted to “weak” and “timid” reform.

Alliance chief advocate Tim Costello said the major parties had missed a rare opportunity to substantially strengthen protections against gambling harm.

“The reforms that will now go through the Federal Parliament are cosmetic over substance and reflect the major party’s intent to prioritise power, money and vested interests over the welfare of Australians,” Costello said.

The Alliance argues the legislation falls far short of the Murphy inquiry recommendations, which included a comprehensive gambling advertising ban, stronger restrictions on inducements, a national gambling regulator and treating gambling harm as a public health issue.

It also criticized the government’s reliance on an opt-out model.

“An opt-out register will not be effective in preventing harm, and it is not what Australians are calling for,” Costello said.

Alliance chief executive Martin Thomas warned that children were increasingly being reached through sophisticated digital marketing as well as traditional sports broadcasts.

“The evidence shows that underage kids as young as 14 are being targeted through social media to download gambling apps,” Thomas said, adding that children were also being exposed to what he described as a “tsunami of gambling ads” through television and sport.

The organization said the government’s measures “will not protect children, will not delink sport and wagering and will not end the saturation of media ads” Australians encounter.

The jersey provisions have become a particularly visible test of that promise.

According to The Guardian, seven NRL clubs currently have wagering or lottery branding on their jerseys, with several agreements running until at least the end of the 2028 season. The Sydney Roosters extended their longstanding UniBet jersey sponsorship in July 2025, with the branding also appearing on the club’s women’s jerseys.

Public health expert Samantha Thomas said the lengthy transition made it “difficult to take the government seriously” when it claimed it wanted to break the nexus between gambling and sport.

“The government has effectively said that they recognise that gambling sponsorship is harmful to children and then decided that it can continue for the next five years,” she said.

Martin Thomas said the grandfathering provisions “underscored how little a difference these compromised gambling reforms will make.”

Liberal MP Andrew Wallace, who crossed the floor to oppose the legislation, has also criticized the five-year transition, arguing that two years would have provided sporting organizations sufficient time to secure replacement sponsors.

For Pocock, a child in Year 8 today could potentially reach the end of secondary school while still watching professional athletes take the field wearing gambling company branding.

Featured image: Nat Butcher via WikiCommons / CC BY 2.0

The post Pocock condemns ‘absurd’ delay that could leave gambling logos on sports jerseys until 2032 appeared first on ReadWrite.

Kalshi is pushing to keep New York’s lawsuit against the prediction-market operator in federal court, saying the state’s case cannot be resolved without answering key questions about federal commodities and gambling law.

In an August 21 filing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Kalshi challenged Attorney General Letitia James’ effort to send the dispute back to state court.

“This case should not be remanded,” Kalshi said in the filing.

New York sued Kalshi on July 31, accusing the company of operating an illegal gambling business without a state gaming license. The case cites the federal Wire Act alongside New York constitutional, criminal, racing and wagering laws. Officials want to stop Kalshi’s operations in the state and are seeking restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties and accounting information.

Kalshi moved the lawsuit into federal court that same day.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) granted Kalshi designated contract market status in 2020. Kalshi maintains that its contracts are federally regulated derivatives and fall under the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction when traded on its market.

Kalshi says federal commodities law overrides New York gambling claims

Sports contracts joined Kalshi’s offerings in January 2025. When those products were self-certified, the CFTC asked Kalshi for information showing they complied with federal law, according to the filing. Kalshi responded, and the regulator took no further action.

“The State’s claims necessarily raise disputed and substantial federal law issues,” Kalshi said.

Kalshi points to three reasons the federal court should retain the case. Its first argument focuses partly on New York’s Wire Act claim. Deciding it, Kalshi says, means determining whether event contracts qualify as betting or wagering and examining the Wire Act alongside the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act and Commodity Exchange Act.

The company says the same federal questions underpin New York’s state gambling allegations because a court must decide whether federal law permits the contracts as swaps regulated by the CFTC.

Kalshi also invokes the federal officer removal statute and argues that its CFTC designation gives it a federally derived property right. Separately, it says New York cannot sidestep federal jurisdiction by excluding the CFTC as a party.

The jurisdiction battle follows regulatory clashes. On August 11, the CFTC issued an emergency order directing Kalshi to continue normal operations while the litigation proceeds, after warning that New York’s requested restrictions could disrupt derivatives markets. New York has also pursued a separate Gaming Commission investigation and previously ordered Kalshi to cease operations.

“The federal issue—whether Kalshi’s event contracts are unlawful gambling or authorized swap transactions traded on a federal exchange subject to the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction—is ‘actually disputed,’” the company said.

Kalshi now wants the federal judge to reject New York’s remand request and keep the dispute in federal court.

Featured image: Canva / Kalshi

The post Kalshi fights New York bid to move prediction market case to state court from federal court appeared first on ReadWrite.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is backing the criminal case against Gannon Ken Van Dyke, a US Army master sergeant accused of using classified military information to make more than $400,000 trading Polymarket event contracts tied to Venezuela and Nicolás Maduro.

In an August 21 notice, the CFTC asked the US District Judge Margaret M. Garnett for permission to file an amicus brief supporting prosecutors as Van Dyke seeks to dismiss Commodity Exchange Act charges. He argues the contracts are not swaps under federal law and says applying its anti-fraud provision to his conduct would be unconstitutional.

“Both contentions are wrong,” CFTC Counselor Cameron Sinsheimer wrote in the letter.

The regulator argues Congress defined swaps broadly enough to include the event contracts Van Dyke traded. It says adopting his interpretation could also significantly restrict federal oversight of prediction markets.

“Van Dyke’s distortion of the CEA’s text, if accepted, would undermine the Commission’s jurisdiction over a huge range of event contracts whose notional volume totals into the tens of billions of dollars,” Sinsheimer wrote.

CFTC says Polymarket event contracts fall under federal swaps law in US soldier case

Van Dyke, 38, served with US Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Prosecutors say his role in Operation Absolute Resolve gave him access to classified and other nonpublic details about a mission targeting Maduro.

“The core theory of the Indictment is that Van Dyke took information that he had pledged to keep confidential and, though he was duty-bound not to do so, he used it to make a personal profit,” prosecutors said.

Van Dyke had signed nondisclosure agreements covering classified material. One agreement concerning “Western Hemisphere Operations” said information obtained through his work “is now and will remain the property of the United States Government.”

According to prosecutors, he opened a Polymarket account on December 26, 2025, before spending about $33,934 on contracts involving Venezuela and Maduro through January 2. US special forces captured Maduro and his wife in Caracas on January 3. Prosecutors say the successful trades left Van Dyke with more than $400,000 in net profit.

A grand jury indicted him in April on five counts covering confidential government information, commodities and swap fraud, wire fraud and an unlawful monetary transaction. He pleaded not guilty and was released on $250,000 bail with travel restrictions.

Prosecutors have called it the Justice Department’s first criminal insider-trading prosecution involving prediction markets. Van Dyke moved to dismiss the indictment on July 31.

Van Dyke “committed an old crime on a new platform,” they said.

“Because the Indictment alleges all that it must,” prosecutors said, “the next step is trial.”

The CFTC also rejects Van Dyke’s argument that he lacked sufficient notice that federal law covered his alleged conduct. It points to the Commodity Exchange Act, its own regulatory actions and similar contracts traded on CFTC-registered exchanges.

The agency says its proposed filing could help the court address legal questions with implications beyond Van Dyke’s prosecution.

“Here, the proposed amicus brief is both timely and useful, and will aid the court in its deliberation of this matter by offering insights not available from the parties,” Sinsheimer wrote.

Featured image: CFTC via Wikimedia Commons / Canva

The post CFTC backs case against US soldier accused of Polymarket insider trading appeared first on ReadWrite.