Are prediction markets legal? In the United States the honest answer, as of 3 October 2026, is that it depends on which federal appeals court covers the state you are standing in. On 25 September 2026 a unanimous panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that Kalshi's sports-event contracts are not "swaps" and that Ohio and Tennessee may apply their gambling laws to them, and within days Ohio's governor said the state would enforce its law against the company. Outside the US, the UK Gambling Commission, the EU's securities watchdog and a bloc of European gambling regulators have each said, in different ways, that the products cannot simply be relabelled as finance to escape national rules. This analysis sets out where event contracts stand, what the courts actually held, and the compliance risks for operators, brokers and the sports and media businesses that partner with them.
Are prediction markets legal? The short answer by jurisdiction
Prediction markets are lawful in some places and for some products, but there is no jurisdiction where a platform can assume that every contract it lists is legal everywhere its users are. The legality question turns on two things: whether a given contract is treated as a financial derivative or as a bet, and which regulator has the final say. In the US, the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) says it has exclusive jurisdiction over contracts listed on exchanges it has registered; dozens of states say sports contracts are simply sports betting.
In Great Britain and the EU, regulators have taken the view that most event contracts are either gambling, requiring a local licence, or binary options, which cannot be sold to retail customers at all.
The table below summarises the position as reported by regulators and courts on or before 3 October 2026. It is a snapshot of a fast-moving area, not a substitute for advice from specialist gaming lawyers in each market.
| Jurisdiction | Main regulator or court | Position as of 3 October 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| US (federal) | CFTC | Registered exchanges (DCMs) may self-certify event contracts; the CFTC claims exclusive jurisdiction and is writing new rules |
| Ohio and Tennessee | Sixth Circuit | Sports-event contracts are not swaps; state gambling law can apply (preliminary-injunction stage) |
| Nevada | Ninth Circuit | Sports-event contracts are not swaps; state may regulate |
| New Jersey | Third Circuit | Kalshi likely to succeed on preemption; state enjoined; Supreme Court petition pending |
| Great Britain | Gambling Commission and FCA | Sport and politics contracts need a gambling licence; financial event contracts fall within the retail binary options ban |
| EU (financial contracts) | ESMA and national authorities | Event contracts that are financial instruments fall within national bans on selling binary options to retail clients |
| France | ANJ | Treated Polymarket's offer as likely unauthorised gambling; Polymarket geoblocked France |
| Spain | DGOJ | Opened proceedings and ordered internet providers to block Polymarket and Kalshi (May 2026) |
For US-facing businesses the practical message is that the map is now drawn circuit by circuit, and that is why so many clients are seeking US advisers who can track federal and state proceedings at the same time.
What a prediction market is, and why the label matters
A prediction market is a platform on which participants buy and sell contracts that pay out if a specified future event happens. The UK Gambling Commission describes it as a platform that enables participants to trade event-based contracts on financial, sports and political events. Each contract typically has a "yes" and a "no" side: if the event occurs, the "yes" positions pay out; if it does not, the "no" positions do.
The label matters because it decides which rulebook applies. If an event contract is a derivative, in the US it may sit within federal commodities law and the CFTC's oversight. If it is a wager, it falls under state gambling law in the US and national gambling law in Europe, with licensing, age limits, tax, advertising rules and player-protection duties. Platforms such as Kalshi have argued that they are financial exchanges, not bookmakers. State regulators and many European authorities argue that a bet on a football match does not become something else because it is presented on a trading screen.
That framing explains the shape of the PAA question "is event contract gambling?". There is no single answer: the same platform may list a contract on an interest-rate decision, which looks like a classic hedging instrument, next to a contract on how many corner kicks will be taken in a match. Regulators increasingly analyse each contract on its own terms rather than the platform as a whole, which is why the prediction markets vs gambling debate now plays out contract by contract.
How US federal law treats event contracts: the CEA, DCMs and the Special Rule
US federal law treats event contracts listed on a CFTC-registered exchange as derivatives under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), but the reach of that federal regime over state gambling law is exactly what is being litigated. The Sixth Circuit's opinion sets out the architecture. The CEA gives the CFTC "exclusive jurisdiction" over swaps and futures traded on a designated contract market (DCM), under 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(A), while a savings clause preserves the authority of other federal regulators and "any State" except as that grant provides. DCMs may self-certify that new contracts comply with the law, and can begin listing them once they have filed that certification.
Two further provisions drive the dispute. The first is the swap definition added by the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, which includes a contract whose payment depends on an event "associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence" (7 U.S.C. § 1a(47)(A)(ii)). The second is the so-called Special Rule in section 5c(c)(5)(C) of the CEA, which lets the CFTC prohibit event contracts that involve terrorism, assassination, war, gaming or activity unlawful under federal or state law if it finds them contrary to the public interest.
Event contracts themselves are not new to the CFTC. The Commission says it first officially recognised event contracts in 1992, when it allowed the Iowa Electronic Markets to operate. What is new is scale and subject matter. According to the Sixth Circuit, Kalshi has been registered as a DCM since 2020 and self-certified its first sports-event contracts on 22 January 2025, covering outcomes from tournament winners to parlays combining several in-game events. Clients structuring products in this space need derivatives and banking advisers as much as gaming counsel, because the answer depends on how each contract is built.
What the Sixth Circuit decided in Kalshi v Schuler
The Sixth Circuit held that Kalshi had not shown its sports-event contracts are swaps, and that even if they were, the CEA does not preempt Ohio's or Tennessee's gambling laws. The joined appeals, KalshiEX LLC v Schuler (Ohio) and KalshiEX LLC v Orgel (Tennessee), Nos. 26-3196/5235, were argued on 30 July 2026 and decided on 25 September 2026 by Judges Clay, Gibbons and Bloomekatz, with Judge Julia Smith Gibbons writing for the court. The panel affirmed the Ohio district court's refusal of a preliminary injunction, vacated the injunction Kalshi had won in Tennessee, and sent both cases back for further proceedings.
Why sports contracts are not swaps
The court accepted that a game's result is an "event", but read the phrase "associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence" to require an event intrinsically tied to a financial consequence, such as a change in interest rates. Sports outcomes, the panel said, have at most "downstream" economic effects. It relied on Kalshi's own earlier statements in other litigation that its sports contracts have "no inherent economic significance", and on the CFTC's June 2024 Federal Register notice saying such contracts generally lack an underlying cash market supplying price-forming information.
The court added that Kalshi's reading would turn ordinary sports bets placed at casinos and sportsbooks into swaps that must trade on federal exchanges, exposing "millions of law-abiding Americans" to potential criminal liability.
Why preemption failed in any event
On the alternative holding, the panel read the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction as dividing authority over the licensing and operation of exchanges, not displacing state laws that only incidentally burden them. It rejected Kalshi's argument that Ohio's in-state wagering rules made compliance impossible, noting that other operators use geofencing and observing that "expensive does not mean impossible". And it stressed that gambling regulation "lies at the heart of the state's police power". The opinion records that Kalshi "does not currently comply with either State's gaming laws", which require bettors to be 21 and, in Tennessee, physically located in the state.
Kalshi told The Block that it disagreed with the ruling, with a spokesperson arguing that the law does not require a swap to involve "intrinsic" financial consequences. Tennessee's Attorney General, Jonathan Skrmetti, described the outcome as a win for the consumer safeguards that come with licensed wagering, according to Crowdfund Insider.
The circuit split: Third, Ninth and Sixth Circuits
Three federal appeals courts have now ruled on substantially the same question, and they disagree. The Third Circuit was first. On 6 April 2026, in KalshiEX v Flaherty, a divided panel affirmed a preliminary injunction against New Jersey, finding Kalshi had a reasonable chance of showing that the CEA preempts otherwise applicable state law; Judge Porter wrote for the majority with Chief Judge Chagares, and Judge Roth dissented. On 28 August 2026 the Ninth Circuit went the other way in Nevada, holding that sports-related event contracts are not swaps. As CNBC reported, the court said the contracts "were not 'swaps' because they were sports bets", rejecting appeals by Kalshi, Crypto.com and Robinhood.
| Court | Date | State | Outcome for platforms |
|---|---|---|---|
| Third Circuit (KalshiEX v Flaherty) | 6 April 2026 | New Jersey | Win: preliminary injunction against state affirmed (2 to 1) |
| Ninth Circuit (KalshiEX v Assad and related appeals) | 28 August 2026 | Nevada | Loss: sports-event contracts are not swaps |
| Sixth Circuit (KalshiEX v Schuler and v Orgel) | 25 September 2026 | Ohio and Tennessee | Loss: not swaps, and no preemption even if they were |
| Fourth Circuit (KalshiEX v Martin) | Pending when the Sixth Circuit ruled | Maryland | Undecided |
All of these are preliminary-injunction rulings, not final judgments on the merits, but a clean split on a federal statute is the classic route to the Supreme Court. New Jersey has already asked the Court to review the Third Circuit decision in Flaherty v KalshiEX, No. 26-299, filed on 2 September 2026; the docket shows Kalshi's response deadline was extended to 9 November 2026, and gaming regulators' associations have filed amicus briefs. Robinhood has separately petitioned from the Ninth Circuit in Robinhood Derivatives v Dreitzer, No. 26-338, with a response due on 14 October 2026. Businesses with exposure across several states will want experienced litigation counsel watching both dockets.
Ohio after the ruling: DeWine and the $5 million penalty
Ohio's position after the ruling is that Kalshi's sports contracts are unlicensed gambling and that the state will enforce its law. Governor Mike DeWine, speaking after the decision, called the platforms' sports offerings gambling "nothing more than that" and said the state "will certainly enforce the law", according to the Statehouse News Bureau. He added, in a line that has been widely repeated, that the companies "just want to have a free ride".
The enforcement history is longer than the ruling. The Sixth Circuit's opinion describes how the Ohio Casino Control Commission (OCCC) sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter, describing its offering to under-21s as "a flagrant disregard" of the state's gambling age limit. The Statehouse News Bureau reports that the OCCC told Kalshi to stop or to go through the licensing process and pay Ohio's 20% tax on sports betting, that Kalshi sued the OCCC and state officials in October 2025, and that the OCCC moved in April 2026 to impose a $5 million penalty for unlicensed sports gaming.
Three points matter for anyone advising in Ohio. First, the Sixth Circuit's opinion does not itself order Kalshi to stop offering contracts: it removes the shield of a preliminary injunction and returns the cases to the district courts. Second, Kalshi has said it does not believe the decision will survive further review, so a rehearing request or a Supreme Court petition is possible. Third, the OCCC has shown that it looks beyond the platform: it warned its own licensed sportsbooks that associating with a company it considers to be operating illegally could call their reputation into question, and that it would take administrative action against any licensee that did so.
The CFTC's response: lawsuits against states and new rules
The CFTC has taken the platforms' side in court and is building its own rulebook for prediction markets. Its chairman, Michael Selig, used his first public remarks in January 2026 to say he had ordered staff to withdraw a 2024 proposal that would have prohibited contracts on sports and politics, and to rescind a 2025 staff advisory urging caution on sports contracts. He said the uncertainty around prediction markets "has not served our markets, nor has it served the public interest".
The Commission then went on the offensive. On 2 April 2026 it sued Arizona, Connecticut and Illinois to reaffirm what it calls its exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts, with Selig promising to defend market participants "against overzealous state regulators". By June its suit against New Mexico listed litigation in Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Wisconsin, and by late August CNBC reported that the CFTC had sued nine states. In the Ninth Circuit case a CFTC spokesperson said a swap is a swap "regardless of the underlying subject matter" and that the court had "invented a new and atextual exception" to the CEA. The CFTC also filed an amicus brief supporting Kalshi in the Ohio appeal, a position the Sixth Circuit did not accept. Those suits include one in New York, so New York counsel are now in the thick of the dispute.
On rulemaking, the CFTC published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on 12 March 2026, followed on 10 June by a proposed rule to amend Regulation 40.11 with a structured framework for deciding whether contracts involving the Special Rule's enumerated activities, including gaming, are contrary to the public interest. The proposal sets out a 90-day review process and would apply public-interest factors contract by contract. Law firm Seward & Kissel notes that the proposal indicates that pure games of chance such as roulette are likely gaming and contrary to the public interest, and that comments closed on 27 July 2026. For regulatory specialists, the key point is that a final rule could change the facts on which the courts are ruling.
Sports event contracts: why sport is the battleground
Sports event contracts are where federal and state claims collide, because sport is the category that most obviously resembles a wager. The Guardian has described wagers on sport as the platforms' bread and butter. Since the Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on state-authorised sports betting in 2018, a majority of states have legalised it in some form, each with its own licensing and tax regime. The Sixth Circuit noted that sports-gambling tax revenues exceeded $3.2 billion in the 2025 fiscal year. A nationally available, federally registered alternative that, on Ohio's account, pays no state sports-betting tax and serves customers under 21 is, from the states' perspective, a direct threat to that model.
The contracts in issue go well beyond match winners. The Sixth Circuit's opinion lists contracts on how many corner kicks will be taken in a football match, whether a broadcaster will say a particular word on air, and multi-leg parlays. Judges on both sides of the split have struggled with the idea that such contracts hedge financial risk; the Sixth Circuit said there is "no conceivable reason" the market might need to know the probability of a broadcaster's word choice.
For rights holders, leagues and clubs, integrity is the second concern. In-game contracts multiply the number of micro-events that could be influenced. The nine European regulators that issued a joint statement in June 2026 warned of risks including fraud through insider trading, and the CFTC's March 2026 staff advisory, as summarised by Seward & Kissel, emphasised surveillance and settlement-integrity controls for sports contracts. The interaction of sport, regulation and enforcement is familiar from other disputes, as our analysis of the Man City 115 charges shows, and sports and entertainment lawyers are increasingly drawn into prediction-market partnerships.
Is Polymarket legal? Offshore platforms and the US return
Whether Polymarket is legal depends on which Polymarket and where the user is. Its history shows the risks of operating offshore. In January 2022 the CFTC ordered Blockratize Inc, trading as Polymarket, to pay a $1.4 million civil penalty for offering off-exchange event-based binary options without being designated as a DCM or registered as a swap execution facility, and to wind down non-compliant markets. The order found Polymarket had offered more than 900 event markets, run using smart contracts on a blockchain.
In November 2025 the CFTC issued Polymarket an amended order of designation allowing it to operate a regulated, intermediated trading venue in the US, with access through futures commission merchants, after years in which it had blocked US users. That brings its US business inside the same federal-versus-state fight that Kalshi faces, rather than outside it.
Its international platform faces a different problem: national gambling regulators. France's National Gaming Authority (ANJ) told EU Perspectives that it contacted Polymarket's operator at the end of October 2024 because its offer was likely to constitute unauthorised gambling under French law, after which Polymarket geoblocked France. Geoblocking is not airtight. The Guardian reported in July 2026 that it was able to open a Polymarket account using a VPN; Polymarket told the paper that using a VPN to access the site from the UK was against its terms of service and that it was strengthening compliance tools. Because Polymarket's international platform runs on cryptocurrency, the UK rules discussed in our analysis of whether crypto firms need FCA authorisation are also relevant to firms in its orbit.
Are prediction markets legal in the UK?
Prediction markets can operate lawfully in Great Britain only within existing licensing regimes: sports and political contracts need a Gambling Commission licence, and financial event contracts fall within the FCA's ban on selling binary options to retail consumers. In a February 2026 blog post, the Commission's Director of Strategy said current products would appear to fall within the definition of a "betting intermediary", and that their core features are akin to a betting exchange, a model that has existed in the UK since 2000.
The Commission said it did not believe a prediction market launching in Great Britain could classify itself as a non-gambling product, warned unlicensed operators to stop targeting or transacting with British consumers, and pointed to the criminal offences for operating without a licence.
On the financial side, the FCA's PS19/11 permanently prohibited the sale, marketing and distribution of binary options to retail consumers by firms acting in or from the UK, with effect from 2 April 2019. The FCA describes binary options as products in which an investor bets on whether an event will happen, with a predetermined payout. That is close to a description of an event contract.
There are signs the position may be reviewed. CoinDesk, reporting a story in The Times, said on 7 September 2026 that the FCA had held talks with trading platforms about potentially easing the ban for financial prediction markets, while noting that the FCA's published position still supports it and its perimeter report called the ban appropriate. Any change would affect financial contracts only; sports contracts would still need a gambling licence. Businesses weighing a UK launch should take advice from UK advisers with both gambling licensing and FCA perimeter experience.
The EU position: ESMA and national gambling regulators
The EU approach applies two sets of rules at once: financial-services law for event contracts that are financial instruments, and national gambling law for the rest. On 3 July 2026 the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) issued a public statement, republished by France's AMF, reminding firms that where event contracts are financial instruments they classify as derivatives and fall within national product intervention measures prohibiting the sale of binary options to retail clients. ESMA added that distributing such contracts in the EU requires authorisation as an investment firm, even if only to non-retail clients, and that event contracts may also qualify as bets under national gambling law.
National gambling regulators have moved in parallel. On 18 June 2026 the regulators of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland issued a joint statement, reported by Gaming Intelligence, warning about unlicensed prediction markets during the FIFA World Cup and saying they would act against platforms that breach local rules. They also said sports federations, leagues and teams should check that a platform is lawful in their jurisdiction before entering major partnerships. Spain had imposed a temporary block on Kalshi and Polymarket in May while its regulator investigated; EU Perspectives reports that Spain's DGOJ ordered internet providers to block both, and that Germany's gambling authority opened an investigation into ADI Predictstreet, a FIFA World Cup partner holding a regulatory approval in Gibraltar.
For businesses, the EU picture means two separate analyses for each contract: a MiFID-style financial-instrument question and a national gambling question, run market by market. Advisers in France, Spain and Gibraltar are seeing the first enforcement files.
Compliance risks for operators, brokers, sponsors and media partners
The compliance risk is not limited to the platform that lists the contract. Each part of the chain has its own exposure, and the cases decided in 2026 show regulators looking at all of it.
- Operators. A CFTC registration does not, on the Sixth and Ninth Circuits' reasoning, protect sports contracts from state gaming law. Operators face licensing demands, penalties such as Ohio's proposed $5 million, tax claims, age-limit breaches and, in some states, criminal statutes. The Sixth Circuit expressly pointed to geofencing as a way to comply with state location rules.
- Brokers and distributors. Robinhood's petition to the Supreme Court shows that intermediaries offering access are parties to the litigation, not bystanders. In the EU, ESMA says distributing financial event contracts requires investment-firm authorisation.
- Licensed sportsbooks. The OCCC warned its licensees that associating with an operator it regards as illegal could lead to administrative action. Licensed operators considering partnerships or their own event-contract products need to factor that in.
- Sports bodies and sponsors. European regulators have told federations, leagues and teams to check legality before signing. The reputational and contractual questions mirror those raised by crypto sponsorships of Premier League clubs.
- Market integrity. Insider trading on event outcomes is a stated concern of both the CFTC's staff and the European regulators. Firms should treat surveillance, information barriers and settlement integrity as core controls, drawing on market abuse specialists where needed.
- Consumer access. VPN use by customers in prohibited markets is a known risk; platforms say it breaches their terms, but regulators judge controls by their effectiveness.
Contracts with platforms should therefore deal expressly with regulatory change: termination rights if a state or national regulator acts, warranties on licensing, geofencing obligations, indemnities for penalties and an allocation of responsibility for age and location checks.
What happens next for prediction markets
The next steps are mostly procedural, but they will decide whether prediction markets are legal on a national basis in the US or state by state. On the dockets as of 3 October, Kalshi's response to New Jersey's petition is due on 9 November and Nevada's response to Robinhood's petition on 14 October. If the Supreme Court grants review, the likely timetable would push a decision into 2027; if it does not, the split will persist and platforms will have to manage different rules in different circuits. The Fourth Circuit's Maryland decision, and further rulings in state courts, could deepen the split in the meantime.
Industry observers also expect the CFTC to finalise its public-interest rule, which could narrow or expand the categories of contracts that may be listed. In the UK, any FCA rethink would be a consultation-led process rather than an overnight change, and in the EU the ESMA statement makes a quick opening of retail financial event contracts unlikely. The likely effect, in the near term, is more geofencing and more enforcement, not less. Claims by customers and counterparties are a possibility worth watching too, and the funding market for such disputes is explained in our guide to litigation funding in the UK.
When to take specialist advice
Anyone launching, distributing, sponsoring or promoting event contracts across borders should take advice before they act, not after a cease-and-desist letter arrives. The questions are jurisdiction-specific: whether a given contract is a derivative or a bet, which licence is needed, whether marketing is permitted, and how to geofence. Our directory lists gaming and betting lawyers alongside financial regulatory advisers in the main markets. So, are prediction markets legal? In parts of the US, in Britain under a gambling licence and, for some contracts, in regulated financial venues, yes; but nowhere is a single licence a passport to every market.
Frequently asked questions
Are prediction markets legal?
It depends on the jurisdiction and the contract. In the US, CFTC-registered exchanges list event contracts, but the Sixth and Ninth Circuits have held that states can apply gambling law to sports contracts, while the Third Circuit sided with Kalshi. In Britain and the EU, most contracts need a gambling licence or fall within retail binary options bans.
What did the Sixth Circuit decide about Kalshi?
On 25 September 2026 the Sixth Circuit held unanimously that Kalshi's sports-event contracts are not swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act and that, even if they were, federal law does not preempt Ohio's or Tennessee's gambling laws. It upheld the refusal of an injunction in Ohio and vacated Kalshi's injunction in Tennessee.
Are predictive markets regulated in the United States?
Yes. Exchanges such as Kalshi are designated contract markets regulated by the CFTC under the Commodity Exchange Act, and the CFTC is consulting on new rules. The dispute is whether that federal regulation excludes state gambling law. Courts are split, and two petitions are pending at the Supreme Court.
Is an event contract gambling?
Courts and regulators increasingly answer contract by contract. The Ninth Circuit described sports event contracts as sports bets, and the UK Gambling Commission says prediction markets resemble betting exchanges. Contracts on interest rates or inflation look more like financial derivatives, which in Europe brings binary options rules into play.
Which states are trying to ban Kalshi?
Many states have taken action. Ohio and Tennessee won at the Sixth Circuit and Nevada at the Ninth Circuit, while New Jersey lost at the Third Circuit and has petitioned the Supreme Court. The CFTC has sued states including Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, Wisconsin and New Mexico over their enforcement efforts.
Are prediction markets legal in the UK?
Only within existing regimes. The Gambling Commission says prediction markets would appear to need a betting intermediary licence and cannot classify themselves as non-gambling, and that unlicensed operators must not target British consumers. Financial event contracts fall within the FCA's 2019 ban on selling binary options to retail consumers.
Is Polymarket legal?
Polymarket's US venue operates under a CFTC amended order of designation issued in November 2025, after a 2022 CFTC penalty for unregistered event markets. Its international site has been treated as unauthorised gambling in France, which it geoblocked, and Spain has ordered internet providers to block it.
Which countries have banned prediction markets?
There is no single list, but France and Spain have acted against Polymarket, Spain also against Kalshi, and nine European regulators including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Switzerland warned in June 2026 against unlicensed platforms. ESMA says financial event contracts fall within EU retail binary options bans.
What should sponsors and partners of prediction markets check?
They should confirm the platform is licensed or otherwise lawful in each market where the partnership will be visible, as European regulators have urged sports bodies to do. Contracts should include regulatory-change termination rights, licensing warranties, geofencing and age-verification duties, and indemnities for penalties.
Sources
- US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: KalshiEX LLC v Schuler; KalshiEX LLC v Orgel, Nos. 26-3196/5235 (25 September 2026)
- US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: KalshiEX LLC v Flaherty, No. 25-1922 (6 April 2026)
- CNBC: Appeals court rules against prediction markets, tees up SCOTUS fight (28 August 2026)
- CNBC: CFTC scraps proposed ban on sports contracts, says new rules coming (29 January 2026)
- CFTC: CFTC Sues Trio of States to Reaffirm its Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Prediction Markets (2 April 2026)
- CFTC: CFTC Sues New Mexico (12 June 2026)
- CFTC: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Relating to Prediction Markets (12 March 2026)
- CFTC: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Concerning Event Contracts Involving Enumerated Activities (10 June 2026)
- Seward & Kissel: CFTC Publishes Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Prediction Markets and Particular Event Contracts (17 June 2026)
- CFTC: CFTC Orders Event-Based Binary Options Markets Operator to Pay $1.4 Million Penalty (3 January 2022)
- Finance Magnates: CFTC Expands Polymarket's Designation to Allow Intermediated Trading in U.S. (25 November 2025)
- Supreme Court of the United States: Docket No. 26-299, Flaherty v KalshiEX
- Supreme Court of the United States: Docket No. 26-338, Robinhood Derivatives v Dreitzer
- The Statehouse News Bureau: Kalshi is illegal gambling and Ohio will enforce state law following ruling, says DeWine (2 October 2026)
- The Block: Kalshi loses appeal over Ohio and Tennessee sports betting laws, widening circuit split (26 September 2026)
- Crowdfund Insider: Kalshi Loses Sixth Circuit Fight Over Ohio and Tennessee Gambling Rules (September 2026)
- UK Gambling Commission: Prediction markets, here's what you need to know (4 February 2026)
- Financial Conduct Authority: PS19/11 Product intervention measures for retail binary options (29 March 2019)
- CoinDesk: UK regulator weighs easing financial prediction market ban (7 September 2026)
- The Guardian: Will prediction market 'catch fire' in UK, replicating US boom? (26 July 2026)
- AMF: ESMA public statement on binary option measures and prediction markets (3 July 2026)
- EU Perspectives: Brussels just called prediction markets' European bluff (10 July 2026)
- Gaming Intelligence: European gambling regulators warn of prediction market risks (18 June 2026)
About this article
This analysis was researched and written by The Corporate INTL Newsroom, which covers cross-border legal, regulatory and business developments for lawyers, professional advisers and financiers in over 150 jurisdictions. It has been checked against the Sixth and Third Circuit opinions, the US Supreme Court dockets, CFTC releases, the UK Gambling Commission's and FCA's published positions, ESMA's statement and primary reporting. The cases discussed are at the preliminary-injunction stage and may change on rehearing or appeal. This article is general information, not legal advice; for advice on a specific matter, consult a qualified adviser. Last reviewed 3 October 2026. For more analysis like this, visit the Corporate INTL newsroom or subscribe to Corporate INTL.
