US regulators intensify their clash with states over prediction markets
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission sued Arizona, Connecticut and Illinois, alleging the states overstepped by trying to block prediction‑market contracts that fall under CFTC jurisdiction. Those states issued cease‑and‑desist orders, claiming the contracts constitute illegal online gambling. Arizona also filed criminal charges against Kalshi for alleged election‑betting violations. The CFTC argues that only Congress gave it exclusive authority over designated contract markets, and a patchwork of state enforcement would undermine national derivatives oversight. A federal appeals court ruled that New Jersey cannot prevent Kalshi from offering sports‑event contracts, deeming them under federal law. One dissenting judge likened the contracts to traditional sports betting. In contrast, a Nevada judge upheld a ban, saying Kalshi’s contracts are gambling and require a state gaming license. The opposite outcomes illustrate the fragmented legal landscape for prediction markets across the United States. Tribal gaming groups have joined the fight, asserting that prediction markets threaten tribal casino revenues and skirt established gambling rules. Four tribal nations have sued both Kalshi and Robinhood. Tribal leaders warn that the case could reshape the balance between federally regulated financial markets and gambling oversight. The controversy now spans federal regulators, state courts, and tribal interests, highlighting the broader stakes for the industry.
