Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act bipartisan legislation introduced in U.S.
Democratic Senator Adam Schiff (California) and Republican Senator John Curtis (Utah) have rolled out the “Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act”, a bipartisan bill aimed squarely at sports‑linked prediction‑market contracts. The legislation would stop Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)‑registered entities from listing any contract that “closely resembles” a sports bet or casino‑style game, effectively banning platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket from offering US‑facing sports bets.
In a joint statement, Schiff said sports prediction contracts are “sports bets — just with a different name” and that they are already being offered in all 50 states in ways he claims violate state and federal law. Curtis, meanwhile, warned that young people in Utah are being exposed to “addictive sports betting and casino‑style gaming contracts” sharpening the debate over US prediction market laws and whether these products should sit under state-level gambling regimes or a federal financial-regulatory framework.
How the bill would change the CFTC landscape
The bill would amend the Commodity Exchange Act to prohibit CFTC‑registered entities from listing event contracts tied to sporting events or casino‑style games such as slot machines, blackjack, or video poker. That would strip platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket of their ability to market sports‑related trading to US users, even though they currently operate under the CFTC as “event‑contract” venues rather than state‑licensed sportsbooks.
The senators argue that the CFTC is effectively green‑lighting and promoting markets that function no differently from traditional sports betting, while bypassing state consumer‑protection rules, tribal‑gaming agreements, and local tax‑revenue streams. By drawing a bright line on sports‑linked contracts, the bill tries to force those products back into state‑by‑state gambling frameworks, rather than letting them thrive under a federal derivatives‑style regime.
Prediction‑market growth vs. political pushback
This legislative move comes just as prediction markets have gone mainstream, with platforms reporting tens of millions and even over a billion dollars in Super Bowl trading volume on sports‑related contracts in 2026. Revenue‑hungry states and traditional sportsbooks have already raised concerns that prediction‑market M&A deals and event‑contracts are creating regulatory loopholes, diluting state tax take, and sidestepping responsible‑gambling safeguards.
That tension feeds directly into the bill’s framing. Schiff and Curtis position the Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act as a way to “clarify regulatory jurisdiction” and protect families, while also safeguarding state control over gambling and gaming. Are prediction markets gambling or financial products? Critics in the prediction‑market camp, however, argue that the products are structurally different from sports betting and that the move signals a broader political campaign to treat off‑exchange event‑trading as gambling, not investment.
Kalshi pushes back
Kalshi has pushed back against the “Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act” while doubling down on its self‑described market‑integrity stance. In a statement released on Monday, Kalshi said its newly introduced guardrails, such as screening and blocking politicians from trading on their own campaigns and pre-emptively barring athletes from betting on sports they are involved in, are designed to prevent insider‑trading risks and align with the spirit of recent congressional scrutiny. In a statement, Kalshi argued that banning sports‑linked prediction contracts would stifle competition and likely push users toward less‑regulated offshore platforms, rather than making sports betting safer or more transparent.
What this means for operators and regulators
For gambling‑adjacent businesses, the bill underscores how thin the line between “prediction market” and “sportsbook” has become. If the legislation gains traction, it could force CFTC‑aligned platforms to retreat from sports events entirely, redirect resources toward non‑sports‑related contracts, or pivot models to avoid being classified as gambling under federal law.
The debate also echoes wider international conversations, including recent warnings from regulators such as France’s ARJEL, which has called prediction markets illegal and warned they promote an “illusion of competence” that can fuel problem‑gambling behaviour. For the US, the Schiff‑Curtis bill may be the first step toward a clearer federal stance on whether sports prediction markets are commodity‑style tools or de‑facto sports‑betting venues.
Subscribe here to SiGMA’s Top 10 News countdown and SiGMA’s Weekly Newsletter. Stay up to date with all the latest iGaming News, and benefit from Subscriber-Only Offers.
