A New York resident identified as John Doe has sued Stake.com, Stake.us, Coinbase and related companies in New York State Supreme Court, accusing them of helping run years of illegal online gambling that he says started when he was still a child.

The case was filed in Manhattan. It says the plaintiff began using the defendants’ platforms while underage, kept gambling for years, and suffered serious financial and emotional fallout. “This case is about the promotion and operation of an illegal offshore gambling platform, Stake.com, to target and acquire minor users, including Plaintiff,” the filing states.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff says he used Stake.com and Primedice from ages 13 through 19. He says he lost his own savings, then turned to his father’s credit card without permission after running out of money. The suit says gambling damaged school performance, strained family relationships and disrupted the start of adult life.

The filing says the plaintiff was “unable to study or concentrate through high school because gambling was ‘the only thing that felt fun.’” It also says that after enrolling at Indiana University, he withdrew within a week because he had already lost his available funds and could not pay for food or necessities.

Underage gambling claims against Stake and Coinbase 

Named defendants include Medium Rare N.V., which does business as Stake.com; Sweepsteaks Ltd., which does business as Stake.us; affiliated entities; founders Bijan Tehrani and Edward Craven; and Coinbase, Inc. plus Coinbase Global, Inc.

The lawsuit says Stake-related companies allowed minors to wager and used marketing designed to pull in younger users. It points to livestreams, celebrity endorsements and influencer promotions as tools used to build U.S. traffic.

Coinbase is described as a central payment bridge that allegedly let customers turn dollars into cryptocurrency and send funds to offshore gambling accounts. “Coinbase acts as its essential ‘cashier’s cage,’” the filing says.

The plaintiff says Coinbase kept his account active despite warning signs and continued handling transfers tied to gambling. The complaint adds that Coinbase “provided the compliance evasion mechanism necessary” for the gambling operation to bypass New York restrictions.

The filing arrives as pressure grows around sweepstakes casino operators. Recent New York action has moved to ban online sweepstakes casinos, while other lawsuits have challenged Stake.us advertising and legality. One Missouri case targeted Stake.us and promoters including Drake and Adin Ross, and another report noted a separate Stake.us dispute being sent to arbitration after a court decision involving sweepstakes platforms.

The complaint says the plaintiff has since been diagnosed with compulsive gambling disorder and panic disorder. It says he attends four Gamblers Anonymous meetings each week, spends about 10 hours weekly in therapy and works daily with a sponsor.

It also says his father now manages his finances, checks receipts and provides limited spending money to reduce relapse risk.

“This is a system built to recruit children and profit from their addiction,” said Seeger Weiss Senior Partner David Buchanan, who is part of the plaintiff’s legal team. “Our case lays out how these defendants built an illegal gambling pipeline — from the paid influencers who targeted children on gaming platforms, to the offshore casino that refused to verify their ages, to the crypto exchange that moved their money. Thankfully, the courts are the one place these defendants can’t VPN their way out of accountability.”

The plaintiff is seeking damages and injunctive relief under New York common law and consumer protection statutes. A jury trial has been demanded.

Featured image: Stake / Coinbase

The post New York lawsuit says Stake and Coinbase targeted child gambler for years appeared first on ReadWrite.

Maryland wrapped up its 2026 legislative session without approving two bills targeting sweepstakes-style gaming, keeping a familiar fight unresolved for at least another year.

The measures, HB 295 and HB 1226, both cleared the House of Delegates. Neither one made it through the Senate before lawmakers adjourned on April 13, which ended their chances this session. The split mirrors what happened in 2025, when a Senate-backed ban proposal stalled once it reached the House.

The result was quickly celebrated by the Social Gaming Leadership Alliance, which represents companies in the sector and argues its members operate legally while providing consumer safeguards.

In a statement sent to ReadWrite after the session ended, Managing Director Sean Ostrow said the group spent months pressing that case with lawmakers.

“We are pleased with this result in Maryland and want to thank the Maryland lawmakers who took the time to thoroughly consider this issue. 

“Over multiple hearings and dozens of meetings, SGLA addressed false allegations by casino interests by demonstrating that the Social Plus industry already offers strong consumer protections and contributes to Maryland’s economy, while pushing back against efforts to misrepresent long-standing lawful activity as gambling,” he said.

“We are eager to work with lawmakers and regulators in 2027 to codify SGLA’s best practices for the broader social games industry, which can generate significant tax revenue while keeping consumers safe online.”

The alliance described the outcome as a win for a business category that remains active in Maryland’s digital economy, even as lawmakers continue debating how it should be regulated.

Why the fight over Maryland sweepstakes bills is continuing

Pressure on the market has not disappeared. Earlier this year, HB 1226, titled the Maryland Illegal Online Gambling Enforcement Act, drew notice because of how it was written.

We previously reported the bill would have allowed the attorney general to send cease-and-desist orders to sweepstakes operators and maintain a public list of sites that received them. The proposal also reached beyond operators themselves.

Platform providers, hosting companies, payment processors and credit card issuers could have been affected, raising questions among legal observers about how far Maryland could extend its enforcement powers.

The state has already shown it is willing to act against companies it says lack authorization. In November 2025, the Maryland Gaming Commission sent cease-and-desist letters to Chumba Casino and Lucky Land Slots.

Regulators said those sites were offering games involving chance and prizes without legal approval in Maryland. The commission gave both companies 10 days to respond and explain how they would stop operating in the state.

Opponents of online gambling have also tried to show public resistance. A statewide poll released in October 2025 by the National Association Against iGaming said 71% of Marylanders opposed some form of online gambling after respondents were given more information about round-the-clock smartphone casino access.

For now, operators will continue doing business while both sides prepare for another round in 2027.

Featured image: Canva

The post Maryland session ends leaving sweepstakes gaming bills stalled once again as SGLA celebrates appeared first on ReadWrite.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) came to the House Agriculture Committee on Thursday (April 16), hoping to talk about market integrity and fraud. Instead, it got dragged into the much messier question hanging over prediction markets, i.e. when does a “financial product” start looking suspiciously like a sportsbook in a blazer? The answer, judging by the CFTC hearing, is right about the moment lawmakers start saying “Jose Altuve home run prop” out loud.

The tension has been building for months. The CFTC has been pushing new guidance and a formal rulemaking process for prediction markets even as the larger fight over whether these contracts are legitimate exchanges or just gambling with better stationery keeps escalating. At the same time, Kalshi has been expanding deeper into sports-style offerings, including contracts on touchdowns, point spreads and total scores, pushing the industry closer to the exact kind of betting state and tribal regulators say is already heavily regulated for a reason.

Rep. Gabe Vasquez argued that prediction markets and sportsbooks may be sold under different labels, but the average user may not notice the difference. 

“The odds are functionally the same,” Vasquez said, and “consumers couldn’t care less if they’re using an official sports book or engaging with a prediction market.” That was less a question than a blunt summary of the political problem now facing the CFTC.

Tribes say they played by the rules. Prediction markets may not have

Vasquez then made the tribal-sovereignty argument in unusually concrete terms. Tribes and states, he said, spent decades building gaming systems with “compacts, licensing, integrity rules, age verification, and consumer protection.” So when a federal regulator allows prediction markets to operate outside that structure, he said, “it undermines tribal sovereignty and state protection.” He pointed to the Pueblo of Laguna and said communities are losing revenue that helps pay for “childcare, education, infrastructure, and the overall well-being of their community.”

This appears to line up with the legal and political fight now underway across the country. Twenty-seven states have backed tribal appellants in a federal case against Kalshi, and we previously reported that tribes argue federally regulated prediction markets threaten the compact-based structure created under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. 

Tribal gaming experts who spoke to us said prediction markets are pushing into territory long governed by state-tribal arrangements, while Indian Gaming Association Chairman David Z. Bean called them “an attempt to bypass tribal authority and recast gambling as a financial product.”

Then Vasquez delivered the line that seemed to sum up the hearing’s conceptual headache. “Airlines hedge fuel costs, farmers hedge crop prices—that is very different from putting money on the outcome of a baseball game,” he said. He asked whether a market on “whether, as an example, Astros second baseman Jose Altuve hits a home run in tonight’s game against the Rockies” hedges “any real economic risk.”

CFTC Chairman Michael Selig did not exactly grab that hanging curveball and smash it into the gap. “Congressman, there are many risks that could be hedged through various contracts in our markets,” he replied. “The bottom line is that these markets need to be well-functioning and comprehensively regulated by the CFTC. Our statute mandates it and we’ll continue to do it.”

In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Selig argued that prediction markets are not gambling but federally regulated event contracts with a “legitimate economic function,” and as we stated, the CFTC’s filing of a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Crypto.com in Ninth Circuit litigation. The awkward part for Selig is that these lofty hedging arguments now have to coexist with the fact that firms are offering products that look an awful lot like sports wagers with the serial numbers filed off.

CFTC prediction markets hearing sparks corruption clash

The hearing got even pricklier when Rep. Jim McGovern brought politics into it with a shovel rather than a spoon. McGovern noted that “the president’s son is on the board of both multi-billion dollar prediction market companies,” then added, with all the subtlety of a brick through a window, “it seems to me like the only reason two competing companies hired the same person is because they think he must be really, really, really valuable.”

There is at least some factual foundation for the political line of attack. In August 2025, Donald Trump Jr. joined Polymarket’s advisory board and also invested in the company via 1789 Capital. Trump Jr. is also an adviser to Kalshi, while Kalshi board member Brian Quintenz was nominated as Trump’s pick to head the CFTC, before Selig was confirmed.

So McGovern asked the question everybody in the room knew was coming: “has anybody in the White House ever asked or insinuated that you should drop the CFTC’s probe into Polymarket?” Selig snapped back that “we treat all market participants alike,” that the agency does not “pick winners and losers,” and that “it’s insulting that you’re insinuating that we would play political games.” 

McGovern, unmoved, replied: “No, I’m wary because it smells like corruption. I’ll be honest with you.” Once a hearing gets to “smells like corruption,” nobody is really pretending it’s a routine oversight session anymore.

One commissioner, no problem, says one commissioner

There was also the small matter of whether the CFTC is actually staffed to referee all this. Reuters reported that Selig testified while serving as the only sitting member of what is normally a five-member commission, and said the agency would not wait for the other four seats to be filled before issuing new regulations. “We cannot, for the sake of the American people, slow down in our rulemaking,” he said. The news outlet also noted the CFTC is overseeing an increasingly complex set of markets, including futures, swaps, event contracts and likely a bigger digital-assets role.

Selig nonetheless tried to wave away concerns about capacity. He told Rep. Shontel Brown that “a lot of that fake news out there about us being under-resourced is incorrect,” adding: “There are certain vacancies that we are filling. That does not mean that we don’t have the resources and staff to fulfill our mission.”

However, in February that five Democratic senators said they were “deeply concerned” that the CFTC’s Chicago enforcement office had shrunk from 20 enforcement attorneys to none, and asked for answers on vacancies, staffing levels and whether resources were being shifted to preserve enforcement strength.

Put all of that together, and Thursday’s hearing looked less like a clean debate over market structure and more like a stress test for the CFTC’s entire theory of prediction markets. 

Lawmakers are saying the products look like sports betting. Tribes and states are saying they blow a hole through long-settled gaming law. Critics are flagging political connections. And Selig, alone on a five-seat commission, is insisting that everything is under control and the referee still has the whistle.

That may be true. But on Thursday, Capitol Hill sounded unconvinced — and more than a little annoyed that the nation’s most fast-growing “financial innovation” keeps looking like gambling wearing a lanyard.

Featured image: House Committee on Agriculture via YouTube

The post CFTC’s one-man show gets awkward on the Hill as lawmakers hammer Selig on sports bets, staffing gaps and corruption claims appeared first on ReadWrite.

The Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation has sharply rebuked Vallejo leaders after a divided City Council approved an agreement clearing the way for the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians to pursue a temporary gaming facility. Tribal leaders said the city rushed through the decision, limited public scrutiny and weakened confidence in local government.

Council members voted 4-2 in favor of the Memorandum of Understanding. Councilmembers Tonia Lediju and Alexander Matias voted no, while Mayor Andrea Sorce was absent from the meeting.

Under the reported deal, Scotts Valley would pay Vallejo $502,000 in each of the agreement’s three years to offset demands on police and other city services. The package also includes an additional $100,000 up front in the first year. City documents say that the annual total contains $12,698 in lieu of property tax and $27,302 for administrative support. Another $100,000 each year would go to a local nonprofit selected in coordination with the city.

The proposed temporary site would sit on tribal land near the Interstate 80 and Highway 37 interchange.

In a statement seen by ReadWrite, the Tribal Council said the agreement advanced in a single meeting even after residents, tribal governments and other community voices asked for more time and fuller review. Yocha Dehe said the process left little room for meaningful public participation.

According to the tribe, more than 1,000 pages of meeting materials were posted late and continued changing until shortly before the session started. Yocha Dehe said that made it difficult for anyone to digest the documents, understand the terms or prepare informed comments before the vote.

“Tuesday night’s decision by the Vallejo City Council to move forward with a Memorandum of Understanding for Scotts Valley’s temporary gaming facility raises serious concerns about process, transparency, and public trust,” said the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Tribal Council.

The tribe also accused city staff of giving elected officials and the public an incomplete picture of the project. It said staff failed to disclose that Scotts Valley’s broader casino proposal could soon face an adverse outcome in federal proceedings that are expected to conclude in the near future. Yocha Dehe added that its own letters outlining those concerns were not included in the public record.

Yocha Dehe questions timing and urgency of Vallejo casino after council approval

Yocha Dehe said city officials also created a false sense of urgency by suggesting the project might move ahead without city involvement. The tribe argued that permits needed for the temporary casino still require Vallejo approval, meaning the city had more negotiating power than it exercised.

“Scotts Valley is not pushing for this agreement because it wants to pay the City, it is doing so because it needs the City,” the Tribal Council said. “Unfortunately, the City handed away its rights without getting much in return.”

Critics of the deal, according to the statement, continue asking why Vallejo moved now instead of waiting for the federal review to finish. Yocha Dehe said city staff told the council and public that the temporary casino would not open for months, a timeline the tribe said overlaps with the expected federal decision.

“Proceeding at this stage to commit City resources just weeks before the federal decision is complete is irresponsible and shortsighted,” the statement said.

The dispute comes as multiple California tribes have publicly opposed the Vallejo casino plan and separate litigation seeks to block the larger project. Recent court action also ordered the U.S. Department of the Interior to reconsider earlier approvals tied to Scotts Valley’s proposed casino development, adding uncertainty around the long-term plan.

Yocha Dehe said many opponents still want to know why Vallejo acted immediately instead of waiting for the federal review to finish. The tribe noted city staff also said the temporary casino would not open for months, a timeline it says overlaps with the expected federal decision.

Despite the criticism, Yocha Dehe thanked residents, civic organizations and local allies who spoke during the debate. The tribe also praised Mayor Sorce, Councilmember Lediju and Councilmember Matias for what it called principled and candid evaluations of both the agreement and the approval process.

The statement said Yocha Dehe’s ties with Vallejo residents and community groups were built over decades through trust and partnership. Tribal leaders closed by reaffirming support for tribal self-determination and gaming on a tribe’s own ancestral lands, saying that principle reflects the will of California voters. They added that the nation’s commitment to Vallejo and its Patwin ancestral homelands remains unchanged, and that it intends to keep investing in the region’s wellbeing.

Featured image: Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians

The post Yocha Dehe slams Vallejo Council over rushed casino deal approval process appeared first on ReadWrite.

The NCAA is asking a federal judge in Indiana to speed up its trademark fight with DraftKings, saying the normal court calendar could let the sportsbook ride another March Madness wave before the dispute is decided.

In a filing reviewed by ReadWrite and dated Wednesday (April 15) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, the association asked to move an initial pretrial conference forward and set a compressed schedule that could send the case to trial in February 2027.

The group says timing matters because the men’s and women’s basketball tournaments create a short, valuable burst of attention every spring. In its motion, the NCAA said, “DraftKings’s challenged conduct is closely tied to the annual rhythm of the marquee collegiate sporting events, during which consumer engagement is at its peak and the value of the NCAA Basketball Marks is at its highest.”

It then warned the court that “Absent an accelerated timeline, DraftKings is likely to continue to exploit that cycle, causing ongoing harm to the NCAA.”

NCAA March Madness court fight against DraftKings shifts after emergency ruling

The NCAA first sued DraftKings on March 20, accusing the company of trademark infringement, false association, unfair competition and dilution by tarnishment. It also sought a temporary restraining order aimed at halting what it described as unauthorized use of college basketball branding tied to March Madness betting promotions.

The emergency request did not produce the immediate shutdown the NCAA wanted. A judge denied the bid to block DraftKings at that early stage, but the court’s order also found the association had made substantial arguments that could succeed later in the case.

The latest filing leans hard on that March 26 ruling. The NCAA says the judge already determined it had shown a likelihood of success on key trademark claims. The motion quotes the court as finding that “the seven factors clearly favor the NCAA and indicate a likelihood of confusion,” and also cites the statement that “the NCAA is likely to succeed on all three elements” of its dilution claim.

The association argues those conclusions show the case is ready to move quickly toward a final decision instead of spending months on interim motions.

The filing also says practical problems are approaching fast. By early 2027, it argues, sportsbook advertising campaigns, app designs and tournament promotions may already be locked in. If liability is still unresolved then, DraftKings could continue building business plans around the disputed branding, making later changes more difficult.

The NCAA separately has been active in protecting March Madness marks in other settings, including concerns tied to event-contract markets such as Kalshi.

The association also says delay risks more confusion among fans, customers and business partners who could assume DraftKings is officially connected to or endorsed by the NCAA.

Before filing, the NCAA told the court it twice tried to discuss a faster schedule with DraftKings lawyers and sent a proposed plan, but “did not receive a substantive response.”

Featured image: DraftKings / NCAA

The post NCAA seeks faster trial over DraftKings disputed March Madness branding case appeared first on ReadWrite.

Iowa lawmakers are pressing ahead with a bill that would clamp down on a fast-expanding slice of financial trading tied to real-world outcomes via prediction markets. The measure, known as Senate File 2494, is aimed at event-driven contracts and the online platforms where people buy and sell them.

The Senate Ways and Means Committee introduced the bill on Wednesday (April 15) and quickly moved it forward. Lawmakers are pitching it as a way to bring structure and oversight to prediction-style markets that have grown exponentially in the past two years.

The bill proposes a new definition for “designated contract markets,” described as “a digital marketplace for trading event-driven contracts that is also regulated by the federal commodity futures trading commission.” The legislation also spells out what counts as an event-driven contract, calling it “a financial derivative…that provides a fixed binary payout based upon the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a specific future event.”

Iowa prediction markets bill proposes restrictions on officials and insider activity

The bill states, “A public employee, public official, or lobbyist, or an immediate family member…shall not buy or sell an event-driven contract…relating to state or local legislative actions or other governmental actions.”

Breaking that rule could trigger both professional and criminal consequences. Lawmakers wrote that anyone who knowingly violates key ethics provisions “is guilty of a serious misdemeanor and may be reprimanded, suspended, or dismissed from the person’s position or otherwise sanctioned.”

The proposal adds that by requiring platforms to screen out a wide swath of participants. This includes company employees, insiders, and anyone with “insider information on a particular event-driven contract.” Operators would also need systems to detect manipulation and report suspicious activity to the state attorney general.

Consumer protections are another major piece of the bill. Users would have to be at least 21 years old, and platforms would need to shut down underage accounts, unwind trades, and return funds if mistakes happen. Companies would also be required to offer tools that limit deposits and time spent trading, along with options for self-exclusion and visible problem gambling resources.

Advertising would face tighter guardrails. Promotions could not “imply trading is risk-free or use similar language” or target vulnerable audiences.

The push in Iowa comes as prediction market operators face growing scrutiny across the country. While a separate bill related to these markets has already cleared the Senate, this proposal is still working its way through the legislative process.

At the same time, the effort is colliding with federal authority questions. Prediction market firm Kalshi has filed a lawsuit challenging Iowa’s approach, arguing that federal regulators—not states—should oversee these contracts. 

For now, Iowa’s proposal would give the attorney general broad enforcement powers, including fines up to $10,000 per violation and $50,000 for repeat offenses. Companies that ignore court orders could face a $1 million daily penalty.

Before launching in the state, platforms would also need to submit detailed internal control plans covering age checks, fraud prevention, and compliance systems.

Featured image: Canva

The post Iowa lawmakers advance bill tightening rules on prediction markets appeared first on ReadWrite.

Louisiana lawmakers are pressing ahead with a push to rein in illegal online sweepstakes-style gaming, after the state House overwhelmingly backed House Bill 883 and sent it over to the Senate this week.

Rep. Laurie Schlegel’s proposal cleared the chamber on April 14 with virtually no opposition, winning final votes of 99-0 and 98-0. By April 15, the Senate had taken it up, giving it a first reading and placing it on the calendar for debate.

The language in the bill itself spells out that, “Gambling by computer is the intentional conducting, or directly assisting in the conducting as a business of any game, contest, lottery, or contrivance whereby a person risks the loss of anything of value in order to realize a profit when accessing the Internet.”

Lawmakers are also zeroing in on newer digital formats that blur the line between gaming and gambling. The proposal explicitly includes platforms that use so-called dual-currency systems, where users can exchange virtual credits for prizes or cash-like rewards while mimicking traditional gambling mechanics.

Louisiana sweepstakes bill introduces new penalties and enforcement powers

The legislation sharply raises the stakes for those involved. Casual users could face relatively minor penalties, including fines up to $500 or as much as six months behind bars.

For operators and those supporting these systems, the consequences state that anyone tied to building or running such platforms could face fines up to $100,000 and prison terms of up to five years if the bill becomes law.

The measure also reaches beyond operators to the infrastructure that keeps these sites running. The bill adds, “No merchant payment processor shall knowingly accept or process any financial transaction” tied to unlawful activity.

Online platforms face similar restrictions if they knowingly host or transmit gambling-related content. Each individual wager or promotional action could be treated as a separate violation, potentially multiplying penalties.

Another major shift would give the state attorney general more direct authority to intervene. The office could issue cease-and-desist orders, giving companies 10 days to shut down prohibited activity. If they fail to comply, the state could pursue court orders to block websites, freeze accounts, or cut off financial flows. Attorney General Liz Murrill had previously issued a legal opinion declaring that online sweepstakes casinos constitute illegal gambling.

Lawmakers have been debating multiple approaches to tackle illegal gambling in the state, including measures targeting the companies that fund and promote these platforms. In one recent case, a separate crackdown bill came close to becoming law before being halted, highlighting divisions between regulators, lawmakers, and the governor’s office.

Even so, momentum appears to be building for stricter oversight. Supporters argue the state needs stronger tools to keep pace with evolving online gambling models and the networks behind them.

The current proposal suggests that licensed casinos, regulated sports betting, and approved fantasy sports operations would remain untouched, as long as they follow existing rules.

Featured image: Canva

The post Louisiana lawmakers advance crackdown targeting illegal online sweepstakes appeared first on ReadWrite.

A South Carolina advocacy group has taken Dave & Buster’s to federal court, arguing the company’s arcade model crosses into illegal gambling. The case landed April 15 in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.

The organization, SC Citizens for Equal Enforcement of Gambling Laws, LLC, says the company’s machines effectively let customers risk money for a shot at winning more. In the filing, the group argues the setup “permit patrons to deposit money for the purpose of trying to ‘win’ more by playing games of skill or chance.” It contends that structure fits the legal definition of gambling because players put money on the line for something of value.

The complaint focuses on locations in Myrtle Beach, Columbia, and Greenville. It aims to recover losses for customers who spent more than $50 in a single visit and didn’t bring their own claims within three months. The group is seeking triple damages under state law, plus legal fees.

How Dave & Buster’s games and prizes factor into the claims made by South Carolina group

The lawsuit walks through how the system operates. Customers load money onto a “Power Card,” then use those credits across a range of games. Some depend on player ability, like basketball shooting or skee-ball. Others hinge largely on luck, including spinning wheels and coin-pusher machines.

Players receive electronic tickets based on performance or outcomes. According to the filing, “the more tickets a player accumulates, the more valuable a prize the player can acquire.” The prizes range from small items to higher-end electronics, including gaming consoles, tablets, and virtual reality headsets, along with store credits.

Images attached to the complaint show the environment in detail. Photos on pages 5 and 6 depict bright, wheel-style and roulette-like machines, while page 8 shows shelves lined with electronics available for redemption.

The plaintiff says the entire experience is built around what the company itself promotes as “the opportunity to win.” The complaint also pulls from the company’s own filings, quoting language that says this feature “creates ‘a fun and highly energized social experience that is an important aspect of the in-store experience and cannot be easily replicated at home.’”

To support its legal argument, the lawsuit points to a recent South Carolina court decision that said gambling laws apply whether a game involves chance, skill, or a mix of both, as long as something of value is at stake. It cites wording from that ruling stating the law bans “gaming machines that attract players to deposit money for the purpose of trying to ‘win’ more, whether by skill or chance.”

Using the company’s financial disclosures, the complaint claims most customers lose more than they win. It alleges that “a patron who loads $55.00 onto a Power Card loses $50.33 on average at a single sitting.”

The group is asking the court to declare the gaming model illegal, force the company to identify customer losses, and award damages under a longstanding state law that allows third parties to recover gambling losses when individuals do not sue themselves.

ReadWrite has reached out to Dave & Buster’s for comment.

Featured image: Mike Mozart of TheToyChannel and JeepersMedia on YouTube / CC BY 2.0

The post South Carolina lawsuit says Dave & Buster’s games are illegal gambling appeared first on ReadWrite.

Kalshi is stepping up its fight with Ohio regulators, blasting a proposed $5 million fine as an “extraordinary and regrettable step” in a fresh court filing.

Lawyer William E. Havemann of Milbank LLP sent the April 15 letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. It’s part of Kalshi’s push to secure an injunction while it continues appealing a broader dispute over how its event-based trading platform should be regulated.

Kalshi dispute escalates after Ohio regulatory fine

Tensions spiked a day earlier when the Ohio Casino Control Commission issued a notice accusing Kalshi of running unlicensed sports gaming operations. Regulators signaled they intend to move forward with a $5 million civil fine.

State officials say Kalshi has been offering what it calls “sports event contracts” to Ohio users since at least January 2025. In their view, those contracts function no differently than traditional sports bets, placing them squarely under Ohio’s gaming laws.

The Commission has already been warning both sportsbooks and prediction market platforms about crossing regulatory lines, stating that any product resembling wagering must be licensed and follow state rules.

Kalshi sees things very differently. In its latest filing, the company argues Ohio is acting too soon, before courts settle whether these contracts fall under federal oversight. The company maintains that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has primary authority, not individual states.

Calling the proposed penalty “extraordinary and regrettable,” Kalshi said the state is “rush[ing] to impose an unprecedented fine” before the appellate court has even ruled on its injunction request.

This builds on Kalshi’s earlier federal lawsuit against the Commission, where it claimed Ohio was overstepping and interfering with federally regulated markets.

Kalshi also warned that the situation leaves it stuck in a legal bind. In court papers, the company described facing a “Hobson’s choice”: either follow state rules it believes don’t apply or keep operating and risk major financial penalties.

The filing goes further, cautioning that if states act independently, businesses could face a confusing mix of rules nationwide. Kalshi described that scenario as the kind of “total chaos” federal oversight was meant to prevent.

Ohio regulators, however, are holding firm. They argue Kalshi’s contracts allow users to wager on outcomes like game results or player performance, using pricing structures that mirror betting markets. They say it triggers licensing requirements along with consumer protections, tax obligations, and responsible gaming safeguards.

Officials have also raised concerns about platform access and compliance standards. Kalshi now has 30 days to request an administrative hearing while its federal appeal continues.

Featured image: Kalshi / Canva

The post Kalshi challenges Ohio over proposed $5M regulatory fine appeared first on ReadWrite.

A legal fight unfolding in Wisconsin over prediction market trading is now drawing in a fresh federal ruling from Arizona, as Kalshi presses its argument that federal regulators, not states or tribal governments, control the space.

In a filing dated Monday (April 13), Kalshi and an affiliate pointed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin to a recent Arizona decision they say strengthens their case. At the center of the dispute is whether federal law blocks local efforts to regulate trading on platforms known as designated contract markets.

The Arizona case involved the Commodity Futures Trading Commission securing a temporary restraining order that halted state-level enforcement actions against those federally regulated platforms. It follows a push by federal regulators to assert authority over prediction markets, as similar disputes continue to surface across the country.

Arizona ruling adds weight to Kalshi federal preemption argument against Ho-Chunk Nation in Wisconsin

Kalshi told the Wisconsin court that the Arizona decision goes straight to the core legal question: whether the Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC exclusive control over trading on these markets.

Quoting directly from the filing, the defendants said the Arizona court issued an order “prohibiting any state enforcement efforts against CFTC-regulated designated contract markets (‘DCMs’) on the grounds that state gambling laws are preempted as applied to transactions on DCMs.”

They added that the development “directly bears on whether the Commodity Exchange Act’s grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the CFTC leaves any room for state or tribal regulation of trading on DCMs.”

Kalshi is now urging the Wisconsin judge to apply similar reasoning. The Ho-Chunk Nation has challenged the company’s contracts, arguing they resemble sports betting and fall under tribal authority as well as the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The tribe has also moved to block Kalshi from offering contracts while the lawsuit plays out.

Kalshi has pushed back by asking the court to dismiss what it calls an overly sweeping case. The company argues that geography should not dictate legality, maintaining that federally regulated markets operate nationwide and fall squarely under the CFTC’s jurisdiction.

Regulators and industry participants remain split on whether these event-based contracts belong under commodities law or should be treated as gambling.

Featured image: Kalshi / Ho-Chunk Nation

The post Arizona ruling enters Wisconsin Ho-Chunk Nation fight against Kalshi appeared first on ReadWrite.

Minnesota lawmakers are moving ahead with a proposal that would outlaw most prediction markets, pushing the issue further into the spotlight as similar debates unfold in other states.

A key Senate panel this week signed off on Senate File 4511, sending it along to another committee for continued review. The measure, brought forward by Sen. John Marty, DFL–Roseville, cleared the Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee without opposition and now heads to the Senate Finance Committee.

The bill would make it a felony to run, support or promote platforms where people place wagers on how future events will play out, which includes not just operators but also those handling payments, setting odds or advertising the services.

What happens next for the Minnesota prediction markets felony bill

Earlier committees recommended the Minnesota bill move forward with changes before it reached the Commerce panel, where it again advanced—this time unanimously.

The next stop is the Senate Finance Committee, where lawmakers will dig into costs tied to enforcement and the potential impact on state agencies. If it clears that hurdle, the proposal would go before the full Senate. Approval there would send it to the House, where a matching bill would need to pass before reaching the governor’s desk.

Lawmakers cast a wide net in defining prediction markets. The proposal covers bets tied to sports, elections, government decisions, court cases, weather patterns and more. The broad language reflects a push to treat these platforms as a form of unlicensed gambling under Minnesota law, a position we previously reported on.

Supporters say the goal is to stop the spread of loosely regulated betting into areas that carry public consequences. Concerns have been raised about people speculating on elections or emergencies without clear oversight or safeguards.

Critics, including industry players and some legal and tech experts, argue the bill could overshoot and clash with federal rules. They also warn it may limit emerging financial tools built around forecasting and raise constitutional questions tied to free speech and interstate commerce.

Minnesota is not alone in wrestling with the issue. Tennessee lawmakers are advancing their own legislation focused on prediction markets, but with a narrower aim, as it targets manipulation, seeking felony penalties for those who attempt to rig or improperly influence outcomes on such platforms. 

As written, the Minnesota law would take effect August 1, 2026, applying to any offenses committed on or after that date.

Featured image: Canva

The post Minnesota advances controversial felony ban on prediction markets as scrutiny grows appeared first on ReadWrite.

Ohio regulators are ramping up pressure on prediction market platform Kalshi, proposing a $5 million penalty and accusing the company of running illegal sports gambling in the state.

In a letter dated April 14, 2026, the Ohio Casino Control Commission told Kalshi it has the “intent to impose a penalty or fine for operating or conducting unlicensed sports gaming in Ohio,” according to a document shared publicly by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost. The notice also gives Kalshi the option to request a hearing.

Yost wrote that the state views Kalshi’s event contracts as unlawful bets and suggested the company’s time operating in Ohio could be limited.

Kalshi has had an ongoing dispute with Ohio regulators amid fine

This latest move adds to a drawn-out legal fight between Kalshi and Ohio officials over how prediction markets should be regulated. State regulators have repeatedly argued that contracts tied to sports outcomes look and function like traditional sports betting. Because of that, they say, companies offering them need proper licensing under Ohio law. Officials have also warned other platforms with similar products that they could be violating the state’s gaming system.

Kalshi has pushed back, maintaining its contracts are federally regulated financial instruments overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, not wagers controlled by state gambling authorities. The company has taken the issue to court, filing a federal lawsuit challenging Ohio’s stance.

So far, the legal battle has produced mixed results. A federal judge in Ohio refused Kalshi’s request to block enforcement, allowing the state to continue its actions while the case moves forward, giving regulators an early advantage.

Kalshi has since continued to fight, appealing parts of the case in an effort to keep operating in Ohio during the litigation. Meanwhile, the state has stayed aggressive, opposing those appeals and defending its authority in higher courts.

Multiple states are currently grappling with how to handle prediction markets, and the outcomes have been inconsistent. New Jersey has acted to restrict Kalshi, influenced in part by earlier enforcement efforts in Nevada.

At the same time, some court decisions elsewhere have supported Kalshi’s position. An appeals court ruling involving Arizona suggested federal law may override certain state restrictions, strengthening the company’s argument.

ReadWrite has reached out to the Ohio Casino Control Commission for comment.

Featured image: Kalshi / Canva

The post Ohio moves to fine Kalshi $5M over illegal sports betting appeared first on ReadWrite.

Oakland police moved in on what they say was an illegal gambling setup in East Oakland on April 9, shutting it down after building a case tied to repeated complaints and a pattern of violence.

According to an official Facebook post, officers served a search warrant in the 1400 block of 17th Avenue, working alongside federal and local partners. Investigators say the location had been on their radar for some time, citing a recent shooting along with ongoing concerns raised by neighbors and earlier violent incidents linked to the same address.

When officers entered the property, they detained 10 people. Three of them were arrested because they had outstanding felony warrants, according to police.

Authorities say the search turned up a mix of evidence they believe supports the illegal gambling case. Officers recovered narcotics, a firearm, cash, and equipment associated with gambling operations.

Police have not released the names of those arrested, and they have shared few details about the shooting that helped drive the investigation. They say the case is still active and developing.

Oakland Police illegal gambling raid part of a wider crackdown

Investigators say the operation reflects a general push to respond to community concerns and crack down on locations tied to recurring crime. In this case, police point to neighborhood complaints as a key factor that helped bring attention to the suspected activity.

The department is urging residents to keep reporting suspected illegal gambling or other dangerous activity, saying those tips can help officers step in before situations escalate further.

That enforcement effort comes as authorities pursue related cases tied to underground gambling in Oakland. In a separate case reported by ReadWrite, an alleged illegal casino operator in the city is now facing multiple felony charges.

Police say community reporting plays a critical role in identifying these sites and building cases against those involved.

The April 9 raid was part of a coordinated effort involving multiple law enforcement agencies, though officials have not said how long the investigation had been underway or whether more arrests are expected.

For now, detectives are continuing to review the evidence collected at the scene while they look into whether additional charges could follow. Authorities say the investigation remains open as they track down leads and work to determine the full scope of the suspected operation.

Anyone with information is asked to contact the Oakland Police Department’s Criminal Investigations Division.

Featured image: Oakland Police via Facebook

The post Oakland police raid suspected illegal gambling site, detaining ten people appeared first on ReadWrite.

BetMGM entered 2026 still making money, though its latest results point to a business that has lost some of last year’s momentum. First-quarter net revenue reached $696 million, up 6% from the same period a year ago. Adjusted EBITDA rose 11% to $25 million. The company remains profitable after a strong 2025, but the pace is clearly more modest now.

Sports betting is where the slowdown appears to stand out most. Online sports revenue rose to $203 million in the quarter, a 4% increase. That is far below the growth rates seen through 2025, when the segment posted gains of 68% in the first quarter, 56% in the second, and 36% in the third. iGaming continues to carry more of the business, with revenue up 9% to $481 million, though even that trails the 24% growth reported for the full year in 2025.

BetMGM Q1 2026 reports growth, but the mix has changed

The company pointed to “player friendly sports results” and heavier promotional activity as reasons for the softer sports performance. It also cited a deliberate shift toward tighter player management, which is starting to show in its user data.

Average monthly active users fell 9% from a year earlier to 975,000. The drop was sharper in online sports, where active users declined 16%. At the same time, betting activity per user and revenue per bettor both increased. The figures show a clear pattern: fewer users, but each one generating more value.

This has been building for some time. Through 2025, BetMGM focused more on improving returns from existing customers rather than chasing rapid user growth. Now that strategy is colliding with a softer revenue outlook.

The company lowered its 2026 revenue forecast to between $2.9 billion and $3.1 billion, down from the $3.1 billion to $3.2 billion range it gave after its full-year 2025 results. It kept its Adjusted EBITDA target of $300 million to $350 million, though it now expects results to land closer to the lower end.

The change in tone is notable given how often BetMGM raised expectations last year. It started 2025 with a revenue outlook of $2.4 billion to $2.5 billion, then lifted that figure multiple times. The company ultimately finished the year with $2.8 billion in revenue and $220 million in EBITDA.

Chief Executive Officer Adam Greenblatt said, “Although it has been a steady start to the year, BetMGM is delivering on our strategic plan, carrying forward the initiatives that drove our transformation in 2025.” The latest results line up with that description. The business is still steady, but the focus now is on holding profitability as growth becomes harder to sustain.

Featured image: BetMGM

The post BetMGM starts 2026 profitable but growth slows and outlook narrows slightly appeared first on ReadWrite.

Online sports betting is becoming a routine part of daily life across the United States, with participation continuing to climb even as unease about its effects grows. A new national survey released April 13 shows both trends moving in tandem.

Researchers from the Siena Research Institute and St. Bonaventure University’s Jandoli School of Communication report that 27% of Americans now hold an active online sportsbook account with platforms like DraftKings, Caesars, FanDuel, or BetMGM. This has steadily increased from 22% in 2025 and 19% the year before. Another 6% say they used to have an account, meaning roughly one in three Americans has tried online sports betting at some point.

Younger men remain the most active participants. Among men ages 18 to 49, 52% say they have an account. Exposure is also widespread, with about 61% of Americans saying they encounter sportsbook advertising at least somewhat often.

“The results show that online sports betting remains an active part of life for a significant portion of Americans,” said Don Levy, SRI’s Director. 

“Since we began asking respondents about online sports betting in 2024, there has been a steady rise in those who say they have an active account – from about one-in-five to now one-in-four – and the share of respondents who bet on these platforms has grown just as much – from seventeen percent of Americans in 2024 to twenty-two percent in 2026.”

US online sports betting habits hold steady as survey shows risks edge upward

Even as more people sign up, their betting patterns look familiar. Among account holders, 83% have placed at least one bet, and 22% of Americans overall say they currently wager on sports. Nearly half of account holders check odds daily, while about six in ten place bets at least once a week.

Many bettors juggle multiple platforms. Around 35% report using two sportsbooks, while 29% stick with one. Promotions continue to drive activity, with about 60% saying they’ve used offers like bonus bets or guaranteed-loss refunds.

At the same time, warning signs are becoming more common, as 60% of bettors say they have chased losses, up from 52% last year. Sixty-three percent report wagering $100 or more in a single day, and nearly one-third say someone has expressed concern about their habits. Feelings of regret are also widespread, with more than four in ten saying they’ve bet more than they should or felt ashamed after losing.

Wider industry reporting echoes the trend. Other recent analyses suggest Americans are gambling more overall, not just on sports but across casinos and digital platforms, with some surveys pointing to very high levels of engagement or exposure.

Public opinion reflects that tension. About half of Americans support nationwide legalization and see betting as entertainment, yet most also want tighter guardrails. Majorities oppose sportsbook ads during games and favor stronger federal oversight, with 67% calling for more aggressive regulation.

“Legal and accessible gambling is perhaps the defining issue facing the sports world in the 2020s. What our survey shows is that sports fans have a complicated relationship with sports gambling,” said Dr. Brian Moritz, Associate Professor and sports journalism master’s program Director at the Jandoli School. 

“It is undeniably popular, and becoming more so every year, and there’s wide support for legalized gambling. But the growing support for restrictions on sportsbooks’ advertising during live sporting events as well as support for restrictions on betting on college sports show a desire for some guardrails to be put in place around legal and accessible gambling.”

The survey also notes growing use of newer betting formats like prediction markets, with 15% of Americans saying they’ve tried them. Most respondents believe those platforms should face the same rules as traditional sportsbooks.

The poll surveyed 3,084 US residents online between February 16 and February 27, with a reported margin of error of plus or minus 1.9 percentage points.

Featured image: Grok

The post Online sports betting grows rapidly as concerns about risks rise across the US, survey shows appeared first on ReadWrite.

A policy adviser is calling on the UK government to slow down its rollout of financial risk checks for gamblers, arguing ministers are acting before the full results are available.

Dr James Noyes, a senior fellow at the Social Market Foundation, has written to Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy asking for a pause until the Gambling Commission releases a complete evaluation of its pilot.

In a social media statement issued alongside his April 13 (Monday) letter, Noyes said he was “deeply concerned” by what has emerged so far, pointing to limited transparency and open questions about how well the system performs.

“I am reading increasing reports that the pilot scheme has involved inconsistent data, unclear outcomes and unnecessary friction,” he wrote, warning that moving ahead now could weaken trust and fail to protect those most at risk.

Questions over UK gambling risk checks pilot come as market keeps growing

The Commission has been trialling these checks to identify online gamblers who spend heavily and may be facing financial strain. Regulators have said the system is different from traditional affordability checks and is designed to be more precise.

Data published in May 2025 shows how widely the pilot has already been used. Around 1.7 million checks were carried out across roughly 860,000 accounts during one phase, using information from three credit reference agencies.

That same update said about 97% of checks were completed without asking customers for extra details. Only a small proportion of accounts would need further steps under the proposed thresholds.

The regulator has also acknowledged issues it is still working through. These include differences between credit data providers and the difficulty of assessing how serious a customer’s financial situation may be. The pilot has now moved into an analysis stage after its third phase of data sharing.

A spokesperson told ReadWrite: “We’re continuing to work on financial risk assessments with one of the key focuses being on removing friction for consumers. If introduced, consumers would not need to provide documents for the checks to be completed.

“As with any regulatory measure, we will be considering potential impacts for consumers and businesses before making a decision on financial risk assessments, including how they would work in practice if introduced.”

Separate disclosures show that financial vulnerability checks are already in place at certain spending levels, starting at £500 in net deposits over 30 days and later reduced to £150.

Estimates suggest the checks could affect a large share of users, with up to 25% of UK gamblers potentially facing enhanced reviews at certain deposit thresholds.

At the same time, the online gambling market continues to generate significant revenue. Figures show UK online gross gambling yield reached £1.36 billion in 2024, underlining the scale of the sector.

The Commission has said the pilot is focused on testing how credit data can be used in a targeted way and has ruled out requiring open banking or automatically blocking customers who decline to share more information.

Noyes said his earlier support depended on strong oversight and clear evidence that the checks work. He also pointed to unpublished findings, noting reports of a Gambling Commission survey of more than 12,000 people in which 77% opposed the checks.

“My support for affordability checks was done on the basis that there would be adequate oversight and evaluation of their efficacy,” he wrote.

He also pointed out concerns about horseracing, citing warnings from the British Horseracing Authority and hundreds of industry figures about potential long-term effects.

“When the world changes, public policy should be responsive to that change,” he wrote, adding that the current situation raises “serious questions” that should be addressed before further progress is made.

ReadWrite has reached out to Dr James Noyes for comment.

UPDATE: Comments from the Gambling Commission added on April 14, 2026.

Featured image: Grok

The post Advisor urges UK to pause gambling risk checks until pilot data is published appeared first on ReadWrite.

A derivatives exchange operator is now in federal court in Montana, pushing back against state regulators and widening a national dispute over prediction markets.

Kalshi filed its complaint Sunday (April 12) in the U.S. District Court, naming Attorney General Austin Knudsen and other officials. The company wants a judge to block what it sees as an imminent enforcement move and to clarify that its platform falls under federal oversight.

The dispute comes down to control over event contracts. These are financial products that let users trade on real-world outcomes, from economic data to elections. Kalshi says those trades belong under federal derivatives law, not state gambling statutes.

Kalshi sues Montana amid federal-state clash over regulation

Kalshi points to its status as a federally regulated exchange, arguing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has “exclusive jurisdiction” over its operations. In its view, that authority leaves no room for state enforcement.

Montana regulators disagree. In an April 6 cease-and-desist letter, the state’s Gambling Control Division said it had concluded Kalshi’s activities “constitute illegal gambling within the meaning of Montana law” and warned that failure to stop could lead to “legal action against” the company.

The warning reportedly stands in contrast to an earlier agreement. In April 2025, state officials said they would “not initiate any civil or criminal enforcement against Kalshi during the pendency” of related litigation elsewhere. Kalshi now says Montana is stepping away from that position while appeals continue in an Arizona case, where the company recently secured a partial court victory.

Similar disputes are unfolding in other states. Kalshi has filed a separate lawsuit in Iowa over the same issue, while a federal judge in New Jersey paused enforcement against prediction market platforms. Each case adds another piece to the wider question of how federal commodities law interacts with state gambling rules.

Kalshi says it reached out to Montana officials after receiving the latest letter but got no clear response. It argues that the warning, combined with that silence, signals enforcement could happen soon.

In its filing, the company cites recent appellate court language saying it is “reasonable” to conclude that federal law preempts state regulation of trading on federally approved exchanges. Allowing Montana to act, Kalshi argues, would lead to conflicting rules across states and disrupt how futures markets operate.

The company also points to the risk of immediate harm. It references prior court findings describing “economic and reputational harm, including loss of business and goodwill” when enforcement actions move forward without judicial review.

Montana officials have not yet responded in court filings, but their earlier letters suggest they view these contracts as illegal under state law, with potential civil and criminal penalties.

Featured image: Kalshi / Canva

The post Kalshi lawsuit in Montana sharpens dispute over prediction market rules appeared first on ReadWrite.

As more states move to block credit cards from gambling, the policy sounds straightforward. Cut off borrowed money, reduce harm. In practice, the results are mixed. The rules change how people pay, but they don’t always change why they gamble or how they manage their money.

Ashley Morgan, a debt and bankruptcy attorney in Virginia, sees the gaps up close. She questions whether limiting a single payment option can do much when people can shift funds in minutes.

“Not being able to use credit cards on gambling apps may help reduce credit card debt for a few people,” she told ReadWrite, “but many people will just use their credit cards for their other expenses.” In everyday life, that can mean using a debit card to place bets while quietly leaning on credit for rent, groceries, or utilities.

Morgan says some people go a step further. They take out personal loans or pull cash advances, turning credit into spendable cash before they ever open a betting app. “Once the debt is in cash form, it is easy to use those funds to gamble,” Morgan adds.

She also points to a lesser-discussed pressure point, i.e. taxes. Recent changes to federal rules mean gamblers can no longer fully offset winnings with losses, which can leave people owing more than they expect. “The tax issues with gambling are likely to keep getting worse,” she says. “Previously, you could zero out any winnings by your losses… but now winnings are only offset by up to 90%.” For frequent bettors, that can translate into taxes on money they didn’t actually keep, adding another layer of financial strain even as access to credit tightens.

Credit card bans create workarounds as gambling rules tighten

What Morgan describes shows how quickly behavior adjusts. When one door closes, another often opens, especially in a system where money moves instantly between accounts.

Restrictions still have an effect, just not always the one lawmakers expect. Instead of stopping gambling, they often change how people organize their finances around it.

Adding to the conversation, E.J. Simonsen, a business finance advisor and founder of EIDLexit, says those changes can still matter. Even small barriers can influence decisions in the moment.

“Restricting credit cards is one way to mitigate a particular risk of gambling with borrowed money,” he explains. He points to a simple difference. Paying with a debit card or bank transfer forces people to look at what they actually have.

That awareness can slow things down. “Their spending becomes better aligned with available cash, which thus adds a natural restraint.”

For some users, that pause is enough to rethink a bet. For others, it just shifts where the money comes from.

States set new limits on borrowing for bets

Lawmakers are starting to act on the idea that limiting access to borrowed funds can reduce the most damaging behavior.

Maine has already adopted a strict rule. Under House Bill 2080, bettors cannot use credit cards for sports wagering or online casino play. Operators must enforce the ban across mobile apps and physical locations.

Illinois is considering a similar move. House Bill 4149 would block credit card deposits and also stop cash advances at casino ATMs, closing a common path people use to get around restrictions. Even Ohio has announced equivalent measures.

These initiatives reflect a shared concern. Easy access to high-interest credit at the moment of betting can deepen losses quickly. Removing that option may not stop gambling, but it can limit how fast debt builds.

The industry has already begun to adjust. DraftKings and FanDuel have scaled back credit card deposits in several markets. BetMGM has taken similar steps in certain states.

Credit card payments carry risks for operators, including fraud and chargebacks. Disputed transactions can create headaches for companies and customers alike.

As a result, the funding mix is shifting. Debit cards, ACH transfers, and digital wallets now handle most deposits, nudging users toward spending money they already have access to, rather than money they owe.

Behavior shifts more than outcomes change

So do these bans actually reduce harm? The answer depends on what you measure.

If the goal is to eliminate problem gambling or erase debt tied to betting, the evidence suggests that’s unlikely. People who want to gamble often find another way to fund it.

If the goal is narrower, the picture looks different. Blocking credit cards at the point of play removes a fast, easy way to gamble with borrowed money, often at steep interest rates.

That can alter how decisions are made. A bettor who has to move money from a bank account or think about a balance may hesitate, even briefly. Sometimes that hesitation matters.

As Simonsen puts it, the goal is not to eliminate risk entirely, but to reintroduce limits into a fast-moving digital market: “When players are restricted to debit or bank-based methods, their spending becomes better aligned with available cash.”

Morgan keeps her focus on the bigger issue. As long as financial stress and gambling habits remain in place, she expects people to keep finding workarounds.

Featured image: Canva

The post Do credit card gambling bans reduce harm or shift behavior? Experts say there’s always a loophole appeared first on ReadWrite.

A new scheme aimed at protecting consumers in the US has opened up amid the fast-growing world of prediction markets. Kalshi has become the first platform to fully plug into a shared self-exclusion network called SelfExclude, a system designed to let users step away from trading across multiple platforms all at once. The tool is run by IC360, a global compliance technology and advisory platform, and more companies, including Polymarket, Robinhood, and ProphetX, are expected to connect to it.

Instead of forcing users to manage limits one account at a time, users can enroll once, and the restriction follows you everywhere that participates.

What is SelfExclude and how does prediction market self-exclusion work?

According to the FAQs, SelfExclude.io gives users a way to voluntarily block themselves from prediction market trading across a growing list of platforms. Rather than toggling settings on each individual app, people can sign up a single time and have that decision applied broadly.

The idea is to make it easier to take a break without friction. Someone who feels they need distance from trading can act quickly, without juggling multiple logins or remembering where they hold accounts, in order to support better financial habits by lowering the barrier to stepping away.

Behind the scenes, the system is attempting to focus on privacy. A user’s identity is verified first, then converted into encrypted and anonymized data. Participating platforms can check whether someone is on the exclusion list, but they never see the underlying personal information. That way, enforcement works without exposing sensitive details.

Why is Kalshi joining SelfExclude ‘a big deal’?

Kalshi’s participation stands out because it is the first federally regulated prediction market to adopt a shared exclusion system like this. 

Sara Slane, Head of Corporate Development at Kalshi, stated the importance of a unified approach. “This is a big deal,” she said. “It underscores the fundamental advantage of a federal framework: the ability to provide consistent, nationwide customer protections, rather than relying on a disjointed state-by-state system.”

In her view, the problem hasn’t been a lack of willingness from companies or regulators. Instead, it has been the structure of the system itself. “Having worked in the industry, I saw this firsthand. It wasn’t a lack of effort or intent from operators or regulators. The problem was structural. Conflicting state laws made it virtually impossible to implement consistent, effective protections,” Slane said.

This has reportedly shaped how safeguards are built (or not built) across the market.

How do you self-exclude from prediction markets?

For users who want to opt out, the process starts on the SelfExclude platform. From there, they go through an enrollment flow that confirms their identity. This requires standard personal details such as a legal name, address, date of birth, phone number, and a government-issued ID, helping ensure that only the account holder can trigger the restriction.

Once verified, users pick how long they want the exclusion to last. Available timeframes typically range from one month up to a year. After submission, the system processes the request and pushes it out to participating platforms, usually within about 24 hours.

During that period, users are generally blocked from opening new trades. Some platforms may still allow them to close out existing positions, but the core function i.e. placing new bets or trades is restricted.

Can you ban yourself from Kalshi?

Kalshi already offers its own built-in self-exclusion tools. Users can request to stop trading for a set period directly through the company’s website, API, or mobile app.

What changes with SelfExclude is the scope. Instead of the restriction applying only within Kalshi, it extends across multiple platforms at once. That wider reach is what makes the integration notable, especially for users who operate on more than one exchange.

How does SelfExclude protect your privacy and personal data?

Rather than sharing raw personal data, SelfExclude says it relies on a double-hashing process that transforms user information into encrypted values before anything is stored.

When platforms check the database, they run the same hashing method and receive a simple response: match or no match. No names, IDs, or contact details are ever exposed in that exchange.

Because of this structure, even the stored data cannot be reverse-engineered to reveal someone’s identity. All communication is encrypted, and the system is built specifically to avoid holding reconstructable personal information.

Why was cross-platform self-exclusion difficult before?

Efforts like this have historically run into issues regarding fragmented regulation, particularly in the United States. Different states enforce different rules, and those differences have made coordination difficult.

Slane pointed to how that played out in practice. “A clear example was self-exclusion: we were often prohibited from sharing self-exclusion customer lists across state lines, limiting our ability to safeguard individuals who needed it most. This is where regulatory fragmentation can lead to unintended consequences,” she said.

In many cases, that fragmentation shifted responsibility onto users themselves. “Instead of prioritizing the customer, stakeholders are forced to navigate a maze of inconsistent requirements. And who gets overlooked…the customer.”

What happens after your self-exclusion period ends?

When the selected exclusion period runs out, access is automatically restored. Participating platforms are notified, and normal account functionality returns without the user needing to take additional steps.

At any point during the exclusion, users can log in to check their status, see how much time remains, or choose to enroll again if they want a longer break.

One key rule is that the exclusion cannot be reversed early. Once a timeframe is chosen, it remains in place until it expires. The intention is to prevent spur-of-the-moment decisions from undoing what was meant to be a protective measure.

What’s next for SelfExclude and prediction market regulation?

With additional companies already in the pipeline, the network could increase quickly and become a standard layer of protection across the industry.

Slane sees this as part of a general move toward more consistent safeguards. “Supporting a federally regulated exchange doesn’t mean opposing state-regulated, house-backed sports betting. Both models can coexist,” she said. “The key difference is that a federal framework enables consistent, nationwide protections, ensuring that customers receive the same safeguards regardless of which state they are located.”

Featured image: SelfExclude.io

The post How do you self-exclude from prediction markets? Kalshi joins SelfExclude network appeared first on ReadWrite.

Abigail Spanberger has stepped into a growing fight over gambling policy in Virginia, rejecting a bill that would have pushed Fairfax County toward a public vote on a proposed casino.

The legislation, Senate Bill 756, focused on Tysons Corner and would have required the county’s Board of Supervisors to schedule a referendum, even though local leaders had already made clear they were not on board. By vetoing it, Spanberger sided with local officials and warned against letting the state override those decisions.

“Local governing boards should lead on proposed casino development, as has happened in every locality that now has a casino,” said Spanberger in a press release. “But in Fairfax County, the Board of Supervisors has explicitly opposed this legislation, and an overwhelming majority of the General Assembly members who represent Fairfax voted against it.”

Her move stops an effort by some state lawmakers to advance the project despite resistance at the county level. We previously reported how the proposal became a flashpoint in Richmond, with supporters arguing a referendum would let voters decide, while opponents said it ignored the standard process used elsewhere in Virginia.

Under current law, local governments typically take the lead by asking a court to authorize a referendum after the state designates them as eligible casino sites. This has been used in multiple cities since lawmakers opened the door to casino development in 2020.

Spanberger argues Fairfax casino issue centers on local control

Spanberger argued the bill would have broken from that pattern by forcing a vote where local leaders do not want one. She also objected to language that would have allowed state lawmakers to dictate the exact location of a casino within the county.

“In no other circumstance has the General Assembly prescribed specifications for a casino’s location,” said Spanberger. “This effectively precludes local input and eliminates local decisions. While this legislation specifically affects only Fairfax County, it would set a precedent to bring casino referendums to other localities where the local governing board may similarly oppose such an effort.”

Several cities have already approved casinos through referendums, while others have rejected them. At the same time, new projects are moving forward, including a recently launched effort in Petersburg where developers have broken ground on a major casino resort expected to bring jobs and tax revenue.

Spanberger used the moment to renew her call for a more unified regulatory system, saying the state still lacks a single independent authority to oversee the expanding industry. For now, the Fairfax proposal remains in limbo.

Featured image: Ezra Deutsch-Feldman via WikiCommons / CC BY-SA 4.0

The post Spanberger veto blocks Fairfax casino vote amid clash over local control appeared first on ReadWrite.