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

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

Briefs and CFTC action put focus on federal authority

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

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

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

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

Appellate courts disagree on sports contracts

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

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

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

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

NFL raises concerns about oversight

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government-event wagers draw strong opposition

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

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

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

Most respondents also see gambling

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

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

Federal and state regulators remain at odds

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

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

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

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

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

Proposals target personalization and at-risk bettors

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

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

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

Commission flags gaps between operators

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

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

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

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

Industry says regulated market remains central

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal rules meet state gambling authority

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

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

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

States and the NFL press their case

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

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

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

Comment periods and court review ahead

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

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

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

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

Draft targets operators, not a settled legal category

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

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

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

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

Industry attorney objects to the proposed scope

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

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

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

Gaming growth puts regulation in focus

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tribe challenges DraftKings’ Florida products

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

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

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

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

DraftKings disputes the characterization

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

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

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

Compact dispute reaches a new test

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

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

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

Case awaits further court action

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

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

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

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

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

Kalshi builds its lobbying footprint

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

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

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

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

Federal and state authority remain contested

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

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

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

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

The central legal question remains open

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

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

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

Blockchain.com has asked the CFTC for permission to offer prediction markets and cryptocurrency derivatives in the United States, but the applications have not yet been approved.

The company told CNBC about the filings on October 9, according to FinanceFeeds. Its requests cover both retail and institutional customers; neither a U.S. launch nor a decision date was reported.

Two registrations, two roles

Blockchain.com is seeking designated contract market status, which would let it operate a regulated futures exchange, and registration as a futures commission merchant, enabling it to broker derivatives contracts. Together, those permissions would provide a route to offer event contracts and crypto derivatives under the requested federal framework.

The company already serves some international customers with prediction markets through Polymarket and perpetual futures powered by Hyperliquid. FinanceFeeds reports that the Polymarket relationship began earlier in 2026, while Blockchain.com launched perpetual futures through its self-custodial DeFi wallet in April.

CEO and co-founder Peter Smith described the filings as part of a plan to bring digital asset management, derivatives trading and event-based positions into one service. “Users should be able to manage their digital assets, trade derivatives, and take positions on real-world events easily, without jumping between different apps,” Smith told CNBC in a statement. “Our DCM and FCM applications build toward that future in the U.S. through the appropriate regulatory frameworks.”

Approval comes amid unsettled rules

The CFTC is weighing how to oversee prediction markets and contracts listed on regulated exchanges, including possible changes to exchange requirements and customer protections, FinanceFeeds reports. A separate dispute also underscores that federal approval may not settle every question about sports-related contracts: on October 8, the NFL backed New Jersey’s request for Supreme Court review in its dispute with Kalshi, arguing such contracts should be regulated under state gambling laws rather than solely through federal derivatives rules.

The agency’s developing approach to prediction-market contracts is part of the backdrop for Blockchain.com’s application. The company’s U.S. operating position therefore remains contingent on the regulator’s decision, with no launch timetable announced.

More crypto platforms are entering the field

Blockchain.com’s filings arrive as crypto companies pursue ways to offer event-based trading. Binance.US said in July that it planned to apply for DCM status, while Crypto.com and Gemini operate prediction-market platforms, and Coinbase offers event contracts through a partnership with Kalshi.

Other operators have already reached different points in the approval process: Novig’s nationwide sports prediction market and ProphetX’s CFTC-approved exchange illustrate that the field includes both pending applications and approved services. Blockchain.com, by contrast, is still seeking the permissions it would need before it could bring the proposed offerings to U.S. customers.

The post Crypto and Event Trading Could Join One Blockchain.com Service appeared first on ReadWrite.

The CFTC is confronting an expanding crypto and prediction-market sector with fewer staff and sharply reduced enforcement activity, raising questions about its capacity to police markets where hundreds of billions of dollars are traded each week.

By the end of 2025, the agency had 21% fewer employees than its average staffing over the previous decade, according to NPR’s October 8 report, which cited Office of Personnel Management data. CFTC enforcement actions in 2025 were nearly 80% below the annual average for the prior decade, based on the agency’s annual reports.

Staffing fell 22% between January 2024 and January 2025. The contraction comes as the CFTC is expected to develop rules for crypto and prediction markets, leaving the agency to manage new responsibilities with fewer people and a reduced enforcement record.

The figures point to an oversight-capacity concern, not proof that any particular company has broken the law or that the regulator has lost its authority. During 2026, the CFTC saw a slight staffing uptick; it told NPR it was on track to hire roughly 100 employees in mission-critical areas by the end of the year.

Enforcement shifts as markets grow

Before crypto and prediction markets expanded, the CFTC focused largely on traditional derivatives, including grain and stock futures. Under the Biden administration, it brought enforcement cases against cryptocurrency companies Gemini, Mirror Trading, Voyager, Celsius and FTX, as well as the crypto prediction market Polymarket, NPR reported.

Since President Donald Trump took office, the agency has rolled back enforcement actions against Gemini, Celsius and FTX. Former CFTC enforcement lawyer Joe Konizeski told NPR that crypto cases and matters he viewed as marginally related to crypto were closed after a statement he attributed to then-acting chair Caroline Pham; that account has not been independently established here.

Pham left the CFTC in December 2025 and later became MoonPay’s chief legal and administrative officer. NPR reported that she did not respond to its request for comment on whether she had given the crypto industry preferential treatment.

The staffing decline has also affected cases outside crypto, according to Konizeski, who said the agency dismissed a foreign-exchange fraud case against WorldWideMarkets Inc. amid reduced staffing. The company had been accused of defrauding users of millions of dollars, the report said.

The CFTC’s response and expanding workload

CFTC spokesman Zach Fulton told NPR the agency remained committed to integrity and responsible innovation in U.S. derivatives markets, and credited staff who continue to support that work. He also said some employees had chosen to leave public service in recent years and that the agency would keep working to attract and retain talent.

The CFTC did not directly address NPR’s report that the Government Accountability Office is investigating its workforce reduction. Polymarket and Kalshi did not respond to NPR’s requests for comment on allegations by Konizeski that their advertising used deceptive means to attract young men.

Chairman Michael Selig has promoted rulemaking for crypto and prediction markets and argued that the United States should lead in those technologies. He is the sole member of a commission normally made up of five members, NPR reported; former CFTC director Brian Young said additional staff are needed to write rules and process applications as digital-asset trading and prediction markets grow.

GAO probe set to begin in December

The GAO is gathering staff and resources for an investigation into the CFTC’s workforce reduction and plans to initiate the probe in December 2026. Sen. Elizabeth Warren requested a federal investigation into agency staffing and fraud enforcement in July.

Warren has said Congress could use investigations, subpoenas and its control over agency funding to examine the issue. Those are options she has described, not announced actions; meanwhile, the CFTC’s stated plan to hire roughly 100 employees by the end of 2026 will be a key test of whether its capacity can catch up with its expanding remit.

The post CFTC staffing cuts test regulator as crypto markets expand appeared first on ReadWrite.

The Michigan Gaming Control Board has issued cease-and-desist letters to 33 offshore operators accused of offering casino games, sweepstakes-style games or sports betting to Michigan residents without a state license. The October action also highlights a gap in protection for people who have self-excluded from legal online gambling.

33 operators received letters

The MGCB said its investigations found that each operator was offering at least one of the three forms of gambling to Michigan residents without authorization. The named businesses include Azartzona Casino, Basepoker, BingoMania, BitofGold, Cryptoplay, Del Oro Casino, Detective Slots, Donbet, Exclusive Casino, Genie Jackpot, Guangzhou Snail Interactive Technology Co., Ltd., Immersion Casino Online, iWild Casino, JacksPay, Jurassic Slots, L0tt0, Lucky Charm Sweep, Lucky Rebel and Magicianbet.

The remaining operators are mBit Casino, Odds Maker, Raging Bull Slots, Regal Casino and Sportsbook, also known as Wager Street, Ronin Slots, Runewager, Slot Paradise, Sloto Tribe, Sloto’Cash Online Casino, Spin Dinero, SpinsTopia, Stardust, SunnySpins Casino and The Online Casino.

Michigan’s licensed online gambling operators must check the Internet Gaming and Sports Betting Responsible Gaming Database, which allows residents to bar themselves from online gambling. Offshore operators have no obligation to honor that database, so someone who has self-excluded may still be able to open an account, deposit money and place bets on an unlicensed site.

Self-excluded players lack the same protections

The MGCB warned that people using Michigan’s self-exclusion programs may not realize an offshore site is outside state law. Unlike licensed operators, unlicensed sites are not required to honor Michigan’s self-exclusion system or provide the responsible-gambling protections required by the state.

The board’s warning comes amid broader concerns about illegal gambling. An August 2025 analysis by the American Gaming Association estimated that Americans wager $673.6 billion annually with illegal and unregulated operators, including offshore sites, and said the market had grown 22% since its 2022 report.

The AGA analysis also found that the share of online-casino players using only legal sites fell from 52% in 2022 to 24%. Nearly half of players now use both legal and illegal sites, according to the study. It estimated that Americans placed $84 billion in bets with illegal bookies and offshore sportsbooks, while one in 10 sports bettors wagered exclusively through illegal sources.

Earlier AGA consumer research found that 70% of sports bettors who placed most of their wagers with illegal operators believed they were using only legal sportsbooks or splitting their bets evenly between legal and illegal ones.

Enforcement may continue

The letters add to the MGCB’s ongoing enforcement against illegal online gambling. In April 2026, the board announced that it had sent cease-and-desist letters to 45 offshore operators over a four-month period.

Under Michigan’s Lawful Internet Gaming Act, Lawful Sports Betting Act and related state statutes, companies must be licensed by the MGCB to offer internet gaming or sports wagering in the state. Operators that ignore the letters may face further enforcement action in conjunction with the Michigan Department of Attorney General; the board has not announced additional action against the 33 businesses.

Residents can check authorized online gaming and sports-betting platforms through the Michigan Gaming Control Board website. The agency says illegal gambling websites can be reported by email at MIGamblingTip@michigan.gov or through its anonymous tip line at 1-888-314-2682.

The post Michigan Self-Excluded Players Lack Protection on Offshore Sites appeared first on ReadWrite.

The NFL has filed an amicus brief backing New Jersey’s petition for Supreme Court intervention, asking the justices to clarify whether states can regulate sports prediction contracts or whether federal oversight prevails, as reported by The Independent.

The dispute puts Kalshi and other prediction-market operators at the center of a jurisdictional fight with direct consequences for where and how their sports contracts can be offered. The question of whether state gambling laws apply to Kalshi contracts is the same one the NFL wants the court to resolve.

League argues states are better placed to oversee sports contracts

Prediction markets let users trade contracts tied to the outcomes of future events. The NFL argues that state authorities already responsible for legal sportsbooks are better equipped to oversee sports-related contracts under the current regulatory landscape.

The CFTC claims exclusive federal jurisdiction over these markets. States counter that binary, yes-or-no contracts on sports outcomes function like traditional gambling and should fall under state oversight, rather than escaping state rules because they trade on a prediction-market platform.

In its filing, the NFL warns that operators are exploiting a gap between federal and state regulation, putting consumers and the integrity of sports events at risk. The league cited the scale of football trading: on the opening Sunday of the current season, $1.8 billion of $3.3 billion in prediction-market volume was tied to NFL games, according to figures in its brief.

The league also argues that the court should not delay resolving the dispute, saying delay would increase consumer harm and create further risks to game integrity. That concern is part of the NFL’s case for a ruling that would establish which regulator has authority over sports-related contracts.

State and federal approaches remain in conflict

Ohio filed a brief urging the justices to support New Jersey and preserve state authority over prediction markets alongside casino gambling and sports betting. A bipartisan coalition of 38 states joined Ohio’s filing, including attorneys general from California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas and South Carolina.

About 20 states are involved in lawsuits over prediction markets, and federal appeals courts have reached conflicting conclusions. The 6th and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals backed states seeking regulatory authority, while the 3rd Circuit ruled for Kalshi earlier this year.

The NFL says the 6th and 9th Circuits reached the right result given the current landscape. Those contrasting rulings have heightened the prospect of Supreme Court review, although the question of who ultimately governs sports event contracts remains unresolved. New Jersey’s petition fits into a wider state-level effort to bring the dispute before the justices.

Kalshi and Polymarket favor federal rules

Kalshi spokesperson Elisabeth Diana said market integrity is the company’s primary focus and pointed to partnerships with Major League Baseball, the NHL and other sports bodies. She said the CFTC is actively policing sports-related markets and that its ongoing rulemaking addresses many of the NFL’s concerns.

That position reflects the broader industry argument that a national market needs a consistent federal framework rather than a patchwork of state requirements. The split between appellate courts over state authority is a major reason the Supreme Court dispute matters to prediction-market operators.

A Polymarket spokesperson said the company shares the NFL’s commitment to game integrity but supports a harmonized federal framework instead of disconnected state laws. The CFTC did not respond to the request for comment described in The Independent’s report.

The NFL also questioned whether the CFTC has enough staff to oversee sports contracts alongside its other responsibilities, noting that the agency has 543 employees supervising a broad range of financial derivatives. The league argued that insufficient staffing could limit meaningful oversight and enforcement, even if regulations are in place.

The league has previously asked the CFTC and prediction-market operators to prohibit certain wagers it considers dangerous to game integrity and to raise the minimum participation age from 18 to 21; those proposals were turned down. Diana said Kalshi had tried to work directly with the NFL on integrity measures but received no reply.

The Supreme Court is being asked to settle whether sports-related prediction contracts fall under federal commodities oversight alone or can also be regulated by states as gambling. With conflicting appellate rulings and state filings on the issue, the operating rules for Kalshi and other platforms remain unsettled.

The post NFL Flags Sports Integrity Risks in Prediction Market Dispute appeared first on ReadWrite.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled against Kalshi on Sept. 25, saying Tennessee and Ohio can regulate its sports-event contracts under state gambling laws. The unanimous three-judge panel’s decision means Kalshi lost its bid to block enforcement while the disputes continue.

The ruling adds to conflicting federal appeals court decisions about whether states or the CFTC can oversee prediction markets. It also gives Tennessee and Ohio a basis to apply their gambling laws to the contracts at issue, rather than leaving them exclusively under federal derivatives regulation.

The Tennessee disputes over Kalshi event contracts and state gambling laws have become part of a wider fight over the company’s operating position in the U.S.

What the court decided

Kalshi had asked courts to block Tennessee and Ohio from enforcing their gambling laws against its sports-event contracts. Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons said Kalshi had not shown that those contracts qualified as “swaps” subject exclusively to CFTC regulation.

The panel also concluded that the Commodity Exchange Act did not preempt either state’s gambling laws. It vacated a preliminary injunction issued by a Tennessee federal judge and upheld an Ohio federal judge’s denial of a similar injunction.

Those rulings affect the preliminary-relief requests, not every issue in the underlying disputes. The decision does not amount to a final resolution of all questions about how federal law applies to Kalshi’s markets.

The panel’s reasoning adds to the appellate split over state and federal authority. For Kalshi, the immediate consequence is that the preliminary court order blocking Tennessee enforcement is gone, while the Ohio request to block enforcement remains denied.

Conflicting rulings leave the question open

The Sixth Circuit’s decision follows earlier proceedings in federal courts in Tennessee and Ohio. Other appeals courts have reached different conclusions: the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco said in September that Kalshi’s contracts are subject to Nevada gambling laws, while the Third Circuit in Philadelphia ruled in April that its contracts are not subject to New Jersey’s gambling laws.

New Jersey has asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Third Circuit decision. With federal appeals courts now taking opposing positions, the dispute raises the possibility that the Supreme Court could eventually be asked to settle which regulator has authority.

The ruling’s scope is narrower than the broader prediction-market debate. These markets can cover sports, elections, weather and cultural events such as the Oscars, but the Sixth Circuit decision concerns the sports-event contracts before it.

Tennessee and Ohio are among the states seeking to crack down on platforms including Kalshi and Polymarket. Those efforts put the states at odds with the CFTC and the Trump administration, as the wider regulatory pressure on prediction markets continues to develop.

Kalshi expects further legal review

Kalshi said it does not expect the decision to survive further legal review. Spokesperson Dani Lever argued that state-by-state rules would create an unworkable patchwork and said Congress established a single federal regulator with nationwide rules.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti described the decision as a win for the state and said sports-wagering safeguards should remain in place. The office of Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

For now, the Sixth Circuit ruling leaves the preliminary-injunction results in place: Tennessee’s injunction has been vacated, and Kalshi’s request for similar relief in Ohio has been denied. The broader regulatory question remains unsettled, with New Jersey’s Supreme Court request and the conflicting appellate decisions still in view.

The post Sixth Circuit Opens Kalshi Contracts to State Gambling Laws appeared first on ReadWrite.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal plans to seek information from DraftKings and prediction-market platforms including Kalshi and Polymarket, while continuing to press FanDuel for details about its VIP bettor program, Front Office Sports reported. The comments signal broader congressional questioning, not a filed enforcement action or an established violation.

The inquiry could touch both DraftKings’ sportsbook VIP practices and its expansion into prediction markets. Its VIP program has drawn attention amid wider concerns about how sportsbooks engage high-volume bettors.

Lawmakers want details on VIP promotions

Blumenthal, Rep. Paul Tonko and Rep. Valerie Foushee said in a letter that FanDuel had not adequately addressed their questions. They want to know which other athletes and celebrities sent personalized videos to VIP bettors and what safeguards the company uses to avoid encouraging people with gambling problems to keep betting.

Blumenthal told Front Office Sports he intends to ask DraftKings the same questions, and to raise them with prediction-market platforms. That brings the inquiry beyond FanDuel’s handling of celebrity videos and into a debate about whether customer loyalty programs and promotions operate differently across these businesses.

FanDuel’s September 24 response emphasized its focus on responsible gaming and customer protection. The company said it would continue investing in technology and education intended to protect customers; that is FanDuel’s stated position, not a finding by lawmakers or regulators.

In the letter, FanDuel said it had sent roughly 30 videos featuring athletes and entertainers over the previous two years, without identifying everyone involved or providing further details. The VIP program is a type of loyalty scheme sportsbooks use to attract and retain high-volume bettors.

How the dispute began

The scrutiny followed the public disclosure of a personalized video that MLB star Bryce Harper recorded in November 2024 for a man deep in gambling debt. FanDuel bought the video through Cameo, and it was sent as part of the sportsbook’s VIP program.

Blumenthal has been in a back-and-forth with FanDuel since the summer. A letter from the senator and the two representatives on Tuesday, October 6, said the company’s response had left their questions unanswered, including questions about the videos and protections for customers who may be at risk.

FanDuel and DraftKings did not immediately respond to requests for comment, according to Front Office Sports. DraftKings therefore has not, in the reporting, accepted or denied the concerns Blumenthal says he plans to raise.

Prediction markets face a different test

Kalshi spokesperson Elisabeth Diana said the company does not target customers with promotions or bonuses when they lose. Kalshi has a loyalty program that can include merchandise access and referral incentives, but Diana said it does not account for users’ wins and losses.

A Polymarket spokesperson pointed to user-protection and responsible-trading tools, including voluntary self-exclusion, deposit limits and access to mental-health resources. The responses describe the companies’ stated policies; they do not resolve Blumenthal’s questions about how protections work in practice.

Blumenthal is skeptical of prediction markets’ argument that they are fundamentally different from sports betting and should be regulated federally rather than at the state level. In March, he and Sen. Andy Kim introduced the Prediction Markets Security and Integrity Act, which would create safeguards against insider trading and market manipulation and ban markets tied to war, death and military action.

The business models differ: sportsbooks act as the house and set bet prices, while prediction-market platforms create markets and market makers provide liquidity. Kalshi, DraftKings and FanDuel each have market-making arms; the companies say those operations are separate and provide no informational or trading advantage. DraftKings’ prediction-market expansion places the company in both sides of the developing oversight debate.

Blumenthal said lawmakers will ask DraftKings questions as well as FanDuel and will raise the same issues with prediction markets. The report gave no response deadline, hearing date or confirmed schedule for further action.

The post Sportsbook VIP Promotions Face Wider Congressional Scrutiny appeared first on ReadWrite.

Coinbase Financial Markets Inc. has agreed to stop offering new sports-event contracts to Michigan customers and close remaining open positions by midnight Saturday under an agreement with state regulators, the Michigan Gaming Control Board said.

The deal gives Coinbase a firm deadline to wind down the products in the state. In return, Michigan will hold off on enforcement action while Coinbase complies and related appeals continue.

What the agreement requires

The stipulation covers sports-related event contracts traded on Kalshi and other designated contract markets. Coinbase must stop offering new contracts in Michigan and close out any customer positions still open by the deadline.

The agreement does not end the dispute over whether Michigan can regulate event contracts registered with the CFTC as gambling. Instead, it sets an operating restriction for Coinbase while the legal question remains before the courts.

Michigan agreed not to take enforcement action against Coinbase so long as the company follows the terms and the related appeals proceed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. That protection is conditional: the company must comply with the wind-down, and the settlement does not grant it permission to keep offering sports contracts in Michigan.

The Michigan Gaming Control Board’s announcement says the stipulation preserves the parties’ rights, obligations and defenses pending a final ruling from the Sixth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court.

Michigan’s enforcement push

The MGCB characterizes the targeted products as sports wagering offered by unlicensed operators through prediction markets. The Coinbase agreement follows a similar deal with Robinhood Derivatives LLC and a state-court preliminary injunction against KalshiEX LLC.

Coinbase’s own appeal stems from a federal court’s denial of its request for a preliminary injunction in August. That appeal remains pending before the Sixth Circuit and has been stayed while related appeals involving Robinhood, Polymarket and Kalshi are resolved.

The Michigan action against Kalshi is part of the state’s broader effort to restrict sports-event contracts offered to residents. A Michigan court order halted Kalshi sports wagering, while Coinbase’s activity in the state has also drawn scrutiny over how the company handles these products, including a Michigan market error involving Coinbase and Kalshi.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said the state intends to bring sports betting into compliance with its laws, whether operators agree to restrictions or courts impose them. The state has also pursued concerns around prediction markets through the Gaming Control Board, including its broader scrutiny of Kalshi.

The legal question remains open

The settlement changes Coinbase’s immediate operating position in Michigan, but it does not decide whether the state can apply its gambling laws to CFTC-registered event contracts. The company must stop taking new sports-related positions and close existing ones by midnight Saturday, even as its appeal remains unresolved.

Any final ruling from the Sixth Circuit or Supreme Court could clarify the parties’ rights and defenses. Until then, the agreement requires Coinbase to withdraw its sports-event contracts from Michigan while preserving the underlying legal dispute.

The post Coinbase Exits Michigan Sports Markets as Appeals Continue appeared first on ReadWrite.

Rep. Don Davis, a North Carolina Democrat, introduced the No Betting on Your Own Race Act, a bill that would bar federal candidates and specified people and campaign bodies connected to them from trading contracts tied to their own elections. Violators would face a civil penalty of $10,000 or three times the net financial gain, whichever is greater, according to Quartz.

The proposal would place a federal restriction on the people involved in the trading, rather than directly penalizing prediction-market exchanges for facilitating a trade. Its practical effect would be to give candidates and their associated parties a statutory rule to follow, backed by a defined minimum penalty.

Who the proposed ban covers

The bill would apply to federal candidates, their spouses, dependent children and authorized campaign committees, Davis’s office said. Those covered could not buy, sell, acquire, dispose of or hold event contracts related to the candidate’s election.

The legislation would also require candidates to be notified of the prohibition during the filing period. That provision would put the restriction in front of candidates as they file for office, rather than leaving them to learn about it only after a trade has drawn scrutiny.

Kalshi case brought the issue closer to home

Davis introduced the measure after a controversy involving Laurie Buckhout, his Republican opponent in North Carolina’s 1st Congressional District. Kalshi concluded that Buckhout had traded contracts tied to her race. She resolved the dispute with the platform in August, paying a penalty of just under $2,600 and receiving a three-year suspension, according to CNBC.

Buckhout said at the time that she had bet on herself, described the trade as a mistake and said she had tried to put things right once she learned there was an issue. Davis criticized the trades in a post on X, calling them a breach of public trust, CNBC reported. The proposed bill would move the issue beyond a platform’s own enforcement process by establishing a federal civil penalty for covered conduct.

The proposal would also address a gap in existing congressional rules. A Senate resolution passed in April barred senators and their staff from prediction-market trades, but did not cover non-incumbent candidates seeking Senate seats, according to CNBC. No equivalent measure had cleared the House, although several resolutions seeking a similar restriction had been introduced.

Davis’s proposal is part of a broader debate over restrictions on political trading. Rep. Bryan Steil has separately proposed limits on lawmakers’ participation in prediction markets, including contracts tied to elections and public-policy outcomes. The proposal to restrict congressional prediction-market trading focuses on lawmakers, while Davis’s bill specifically targets federal candidates and parties associated with their campaigns.

Little chance of taking effect this cycle

Davis introduced the bill during a pro forma House session. Congress was not scheduled to reconvene until after the midterm elections, leaving the proposal little chance of taking effect during the current electoral cycle, Quartz reported.

For prediction-market operators, the bill would not itself impose a penalty simply for hosting a covered contract, based on the details reported by Quartz. But if enacted, it would make candidate participation in contracts tied to their own elections a federal compliance issue, rather than one handled only under platform rules.

The post Davis Proposal Targets Candidates’ Own-Race Prediction Bets appeared first on ReadWrite.

DraftKings and FanDuel each added $3.5 million to Nebraska’s online sports-betting campaign as prediction markets topped $9.4 billion in weekend volume ahead of the state’s November 3 vote.

The contributions to Tax Relief Nebraska bring the sportsbooks’ latest fundraising push into focus as voters consider measures to authorize online wagering and establish its regulatory framework. The Nebraska online betting measures would allow up to 12 mobile sportsbooks to partner with the state’s six gaming facilities.

Nebraska campaign reaches $14.65 million

The latest financial filing reported $7.25 million in campaign contributions from July 28 to September 29. That total includes another $250,000 from BetMGM, while election-year fundraising has reached $14.65 million.

DraftKings and FanDuel had each previously contributed more than $3.5 million. BetMGM had already given $250,000, and Fanatics had contributed $75,000 but did not make a new contribution in this cycle.

The two measures put the question of mobile betting and its operating rules before voters together. The proposed framework would connect the online sportsbook market to Nebraska’s existing gaming facilities, making the November vote a consequential step for operators seeking a route into the state.

Prediction markets post another volume record

Aldrin Research estimated that prediction markets traded more than $9.4 billion in notional volume over the weekend. Kalshi accounted for $7.13 billion across Saturday and Sunday, according to TickerTracker, and its $3.68 billion on Sunday exceeded the previous day’s $3.45 billion daily record.

Sports and combo contracts made up about 91% of Kalshi’s volume on both days. Football represented roughly $4 billion, including $3.1 billion in combos and approximately $897 million in straight football markets.

Polymarket US also exceeded $1 billion in weekend volume. DraftKings Predictions reached about $372 million, up from $334 million the previous weekend, while Novig recorded around $286 million, compared with roughly $200 million. Combos accounted for more than half of volume on each platform.

Those figures show sportsbooks and prediction-market platforms competing for activity in overlapping areas, including sports. Prediction-market activity tied to NFL betting sits alongside the traditional sportsbook market that DraftKings and FanDuel are seeking to expand in Nebraska.

DraftKings eyes revenue beyond sportsbooks

The Gambling Insider report also noted a separate growth opportunity for DraftKings in prediction markets. Bank of America upgraded the company to buy from neutral, kept its $27 price target and projected about $400 million in prediction-market fees for 2027, plus $200 million to $400 million from market making.

The estimates underline how DraftKings is pursuing both sportsbook expansion and prediction-market business. Its push into prediction markets comes as the CFTC approved Kalshi’s US500 perpetual futures contract on October 3, another step in Kalshi’s expansion beyond event contracts.

DraftKings shares rose more than 7% intraday on Monday, October 5, but remained more than 40% lower for the year, according to the report. In Nebraska, the immediate test is whether voters approve the measures on November 3; the campaign’s latest funding shows operators are investing ahead of that decision.

The post DraftKings, FanDuel Put $7 Million Into Nebraska Betting Vote appeared first on ReadWrite.

Maine’s online casino market is legal but not live, with the Maine Gambling Control Unit taking public comments on proposed rules through Oct. 30 as a federal lawsuit challenging tribal exclusivity remains unresolved. No launch date has been confirmed, leaving operators’ path into the market dependent on rulemaking and an ongoing court fight.

Rules and lawsuit shape the rollout

The Gambling Control Unit released its proposed online casino rulemaking notice on Sept. 30. It covers licensing, house rules, wagering systems, cybersecurity, geolocation, responsible gambling, advertising, promotions, contracts and complaints.

Comments are due Friday, Oct. 30. The proposed requirements are an important step, but they do not mean operators can begin accepting wagers: final rules and licensing steps still remain.

Churchill Downs, which owns Oxford Casino Hotel, filed a federal lawsuit in January against Gambling Control Unit Director Milt Champion over the tribal-exclusive model. The complaint challenges who can provide online casinos in Maine, including language tied to race or citizenship, according to the primary report.

The case remains unresolved. Its outcome could affect the structure of the market, while the rulemaking process determines what operators must meet to participate.

Legalization did not set a launch date

LD 1164 established a framework giving Maine’s four tribes exclusive access to online casino gaming. Gov. Janet Mills took no action on the bill in January, allowing it to become law; legalization, however, did not bring an immediate launch.

The Gambling Control Unit held earlier meetings in June at Hollywood Casino in Bangor and in August at Oxford Casino in Oxford. Another meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, Oct. 20, as the agency works through the regulatory process.

Maine has also moved to restrict sweepstakes casinos. The Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee approved a ban in March, and Mills signed it in April. The law targets operators using a dual-currency payment system to simulate casino-style gaming, with civil penalties ranging from $10,000 to $100,000.

The distinction between legal authorization and an operating market is playing out elsewhere, too. Ohio’s proposed online casino market is also being shaped by regulatory and venue requirements, as outlined in Ohio’s online casino proposal.

Licensing and timing remain uncertain

Caesars Palace Online Casino has announced partnerships with three Wabanaki Nations, a sign that an operator is preparing for a market that has yet to open. But partnerships alone do not resolve the outstanding questions around final rules, license applications and the lawsuit.

The next milestones are the Oct. 20 regulator meeting and the Oct. 30 comment deadline. After comments are reviewed, final rules must be adopted and license applications opened before operators can launch.

SportsLine has estimated that Maine’s online casino market could launch in early 2027, but the state has not confirmed a timetable. The unresolved lawsuit may also affect the rollout, so the estimate is not a guaranteed launch window.

The sequence matters: authorization establishes that the market can exist, while rules and licenses establish how it can operate. Alberta’s regulated online gambling launch offers a contrast, with authorization followed by a functioning market under consumer-protection rules.

The post Maine Online Casino Plans Face Rules, Lawsuit and Delay appeared first on ReadWrite.

Bank of America upgraded DraftKings from Neutral to Buy, kept its $27 price target and estimated the company could collect about $400 million in prediction-market fees in 2027.

The forecast gives investors a concrete measure of the potential contribution from a business DraftKings is expanding alongside its sportsbook. BofA also sees a separate $200 million to $400 million opportunity from market-making activities; it did not combine that estimate with the fee forecast.

Different forecasts for 2026 and 2027

BofA said DraftKings had become the third-largest player in prediction markets and that concerns about the products taking business from its sportsbook had eased. The bank pointed to traditional sportsbooks growing faster than prediction markets since football season began.

The upgrade comes with a near-term earnings cost in the bank’s estimates. BofA cut its 2026 adjusted EBITDA forecast to $500 million from $625 million, citing increased prediction-market investment, partly offset by stronger performance in DraftKings’ core business.

For 2027, BofA raised its adjusted EBITDA estimate to $1.15 billion from $1.05 billion, reflecting stronger core trends and expected market-making contributions. It said DraftKings could guide to a range of $1.0 billion to $1.2 billion, leaving room to keep investing while taking a conservative view of prediction markets.

Regulatory uncertainty remains part of the calculation

DraftKings shares had fallen 47% over the prior year, which BofA said made the risk-reward more attractive. Its $27 target implies about 45% potential upside and is based on 12 times 2027 enterprise value to adjusted EBITDA, a modest discount to other leading disruptors.

The bank’s case does not depend only on prediction markets continuing to expand. BofA said DraftKings could also benefit if the products were ultimately restricted, because that outcome would remove regulatory uncertainty that weighs on the company’s valuation.

That balance between growth potential and exposure to changing rules is central to DraftKings’ prediction-market strategy. The opportunity is also arriving as the company manages broader operating pressures, including those covered in its second-quarter financial results.

Fees are not the same as durable profit

BofA’s estimate is a forecast, not revenue DraftKings has already generated. Whether the potential fees and market-making activity translate into lasting earnings will depend on execution, continued demand and the regulatory outlook, which has also drawn tribal opposition to the expansion.

The bank said stronger cost discipline would be needed to support higher margins beyond 2027. That makes the $400 million projection a test not just of whether DraftKings can attract prediction-market activity, but of whether it can turn that activity into profitable growth without weakening its core sportsbook.

The post DraftKings’ 2027 Outlook Includes $400 Million Fee Potential appeared first on ReadWrite.

Pennsylvania lawmakers are considering House Bill 2801, a proposal that would prohibit sweepstakes casino-style platforms and create a state regulatory framework for skill-game machines if enacted as written.

Deadspin reported that the measure combines the sweepstakes provision with rules for machines that have been at the center of a legal dispute. It remains a proposal, not a ban already in force: lawmakers can still debate and amend the bill.

One bill, two gaming formats

For sweepstakes casino operators, the bill’s effect would be direct. If it became law in its current form, they would be prevented from offering their games in Pennsylvania.

The platforms commonly use a dual-currency model, the report explains. Players can use one form of currency to play casino-style games, while promotional currency may be redeemable for prizes. The proposal would bring that model within a broader legislative response to gaming products operating outside the state’s established casino framework.

HB 2801 would also establish state oversight for skill-game machines. Under the proposal, approved venues could include bars, restaurants, clubs and qualified truck stops, with only a limited number of machines allowed at each location. The report does not specify the cap.

The framework would tax skill-game revenue and assign oversight to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board. That would give businesses hosting qualifying machines a regulated route to continue operating, subject to the bill’s requirements. The proposal does not establish a tax rate or set out further operating details in the account reviewed.

Skill-game ruling set the stage

The bill follows a Pennsylvania Supreme Court determination that many skill-game machines fit the legal definition of slot machines under state law. That decision has put pressure on lawmakers to settle how the devices should be treated before enforcement actions begin.

Supporters of HB 2801 argue that a regulatory structure would provide certainty to businesses currently hosting the machines. Its proposed locations, machine limits, tax and state oversight would replace the uncertainty of operating while the machines’ legal status is contested.

The source does not identify the court case or give the ruling’s date, so the precise procedural history is not clear from the available account. Pennsylvania’s legal framework for skill-game machines is central to the proposal: the bill is a legislative response to the court’s classification, not simply a standalone change to venue rules.

Sweepstakes provision broadens the debate

Pennsylvania already has regulated online casinos, sports betting, fantasy contests and retail gaming venues, according to the report. The sweepstakes language puts the question of how to treat dual-currency casino platforms inside a wider gaming package, rather than addressing it through a separate bill.

Lawmakers and regulators in several states have examined whether sweepstakes platforms resemble regulated gambling products, the report says. Pennsylvania’s proposal therefore addresses two different questions at once: how to regulate skill-game machines after the court ruling, and whether sweepstakes casino-style games should be offered in the state at all.

Those debates have also prompted legal scrutiny of sweepstakes operators in other states. ReadWrite has reported on Kentucky legal action involving VGW and sweepstakes casinos and Florida lawsuits targeting sweepstakes-style gaming operators. Pennsylvania’s bill would take a legislative route by expressly including a proposed prohibition alongside its skill-game rules.

Legislative review remains ahead

HB 2801 still needs legislative review and debate before it can become law, and amendments remain possible. The source describes an approaching October deadline tied to the skill-game situation but does not give an exact date or specify the legal consequence of missing it.

The bill’s outcome would determine whether Pennsylvania creates a state-supervised path for qualifying skill-game machines and whether sweepstakes casino-style platforms can continue offering games in the state. Until lawmakers act, neither proposed change is in effect.

The post Skill-Game Ruling Drives Pennsylvania’s HB 2801 Debate appeared first on ReadWrite.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier is suing the operators behind Chumba Casino, Global Poker and Stake.us, alleging that their sweepstakes casino platforms violate state gambling law and seeking to shut them down.

The cases put more than the operators’ access to Florida at stake: the state is also seeking civil penalties and recovery of Floridians’ losses. As South Florida Reporter describes it, the lawsuits mark a shift from a proposed statewide ban to litigation targeting two major companies.

Florida seeks bans and player-loss recovery

One suit targets VGW, which operates Chumba Casino and Global Poker, along with payment processors. The other targets Stake and related parties. Florida is seeking to bar the sites from operating in the state and recover money lost by Florida players.

The state is also seeking penalties of up to $10,000 for each willful violation, rising to $15,000 per violation when play involves a minor, senior or disabled customer. Those are requested penalties, not fines already imposed: the cases remain at an early stage, and no court has ordered the sites shut down or awarded player restitution.

The payment companies named in the VGW case make the dispute relevant beyond the brands visible to players. A separate Florida gambling enforcement effort involving payment processors shows why the companies enabling transactions can become part of the state’s scrutiny, although the claims and defendants in these cases are distinct.

Failed legislation preceded the lawsuits

Earlier in 2026, Florida lawmakers pursued Senate Bill 1404 and House Bill 1467, which would have banned sweepstakes casinos. Neither bill passed. Uthmeier’s lawsuits instead seek to stop two operators through court action and pursue recovery under the state’s gambling laws.

Florida’s approach follows other legal pressure on the sector. New York secured an $8 million settlement with VGW after resolving allegations that the company unlawfully operated online gambling platforms through its sweepstakes brands. The agreement is a concrete example of the financial and operating consequences a state action can produce, though Florida’s cases are separate and their outcome is unresolved.

South Florida Reporter also cites a Washington state jury award requiring High 5 Casino to pay $24.9 million in damages to social casino players. That case adds to the legal risks facing the category, but it does not determine whether Florida will prevail against VGW or Stake.

Dual currencies sit at the center of the dispute

Sweepstakes casinos commonly use two types of virtual currency: Gold Coins for free play and Sweeps Coins that can be used in games connected to prizes. Operators describe the model as distinct from conventional gambling, while states increasingly argue that redeemable play brings these platforms within gambling laws.

The stakes extend to a large and still-growing market. South Florida Reporter puts the U.S. social sweepstakes casino market at $10.2 billion in 2026, forecasting $14.3 billion by 2030, and says more than 400 standalone sites are operating. Those figures underline the scale of the industry exposed to state enforcement, not a measure of Florida’s own market.

The enforcement focus may also extend to advertising. In separate reporting published Sept. 29, Casino.com said Uthmeier sent letters to Google, Meta, Reddit, Snap and TikTok asking them to prevent promotions for sweepstakes casinos from reaching Floridians. The reported Oct. 23 deadline was for the platforms to respond; the letters are not court judgments against those companies.

Florida players can still access the sites

For now, Stake, Chumba Casino, Global Poker and LuckyLand Casino remain accessible to players in Florida, according to South Florida Reporter. The lawsuits seek a different operating position, but access will change only if the state secures court relief or the companies otherwise alter their service.

The cases are expected to continue into 2027, according to the report. Whether Florida can obtain injunctions, penalties and repayment of player losses remains for the courts to decide.

The post Florida Lawsuits Target Chumba, Stake Over Sweepstakes Play appeared first on ReadWrite.