CFTC proposals aimed at separating prediction markets from casino gambling
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has issued two proposals to define event contracts as "swaps" under federal law while excluding traditional casino gambling.
Intelligence analysis by Gemini 2.5 Flash

The CFTC's new proposals aim to solidify its federal jurisdiction over prediction markets, classifying them as commodity derivatives, while explicitly excluding casino-style gambling. This move sets the stage for a potential US Supreme Court battle over whether federal or state authorities regulate these evolving financial instruments.
Imagine there's a game where you guess if it will rain tomorrow, and if you're right, you win money. The government's financial police (CFTC) wants to say this guessing game is like a special kind of financial deal, not like playing cards at a casino. They're trying to make sure everyone knows who gets to make the rules for these guessing games, because some states think it's gambling, and the financial police think it's more like trading stocks.
Analysis
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has taken a decisive step to assert its regulatory authority over prediction markets, issuing two key proposals. These measures are designed to clarify that event contracts, which include those tied to sports, politics, cultural events, and weather, fall under the federal definition of "swaps." By doing so, the CFTC aims to bring these financial instruments squarely within its exclusive jurisdiction under the Commodity Exchange Act, thereby preempting state-level gambling regulations.
CFTC
The CFTC's first proposal specifically defines event contracts as "swaps," emphasizing their nature as financial instruments commonly recognized in trade. This clarification seeks to remove any ambiguity regarding their classification, positioning them as legitimate commodity derivatives rather than mere wagers. Chairman Michael Selig underscored this point, stating that these products are "squarely within the CFTC’s regulatory remit."
Conversely, the second proposal explicitly excludes casino-style gambling products, such as sportsbooks and traditional casino games, from the "swap" definition. This distinction is vital for the CFTC to delineate the boundaries of its authority, ensuring it does not overstep into areas historically regulated by states. Selig noted that this move provides clarity on the limits of the Commission's regulatory scope, preventing entanglement with conventional gambling operations.
Kalshi
The prediction market operator Kalshi has been at the center of this jurisdictional dispute, facing lawsuits from several states alleging illegal gambling. The CFTC has actively countersued to defend its federal jurisdiction, arguing that event contracts are beyond the purview of state regulators. This legal back-and-forth highlights the contentious nature of classifying these innovative financial products.
Recent court decisions have presented a mixed bag for Kalshi, underscoring the complexity of the legal landscape. In late September, the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Kalshi, allowing Ohio and Tennessee to regulate sports-event contracts under their state gambling laws. This ruling found that Kalshi failed to demonstrate its contracts were "swaps" under CFTC jurisdiction, a significant setback for the platform.
However, an earlier April decision by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals offered a glimmer of hope for Kalshi, permitting it to continue operations in New Jersey while its appeal proceeded. This ruling suggested Kalshi was likely to succeed with its argument that federal law preempts New Jersey’s regulations. These conflicting appellate court decisions are precisely what could necessitate a review by the nation's highest court.
Supreme Court
The divergent rulings from different Circuit Courts of Appeals have effectively set the stage for a potential US Supreme Court battle. The core issue revolves around the fundamental question of federal versus state jurisdiction over prediction markets. A group of state lawmakers has already filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, urging it to intervene and provide a definitive resolution to this complex legal quandary.
Such a Supreme Court case would have far-reaching implications, not only for prediction market operators like Kalshi and Polymarket but also for the broader financial and crypto industries. A ruling in favor of federal preemption would solidify the CFTC's role as the primary regulator, potentially fostering a more uniform national framework for these markets. Conversely, a decision upholding state authority could lead to a fragmented regulatory environment, with varying rules across different states.
The outcome of this jurisdictional dispute will significantly impact how prediction markets are structured, offered, and regulated in the United States. It will determine whether they are treated as sophisticated financial instruments under federal oversight or as forms of gambling subject to diverse state laws, thereby shaping their future growth and accessibility.
Key points
- The CFTC has proposed defining event contracts as "swaps" under federal law.
- A second proposal explicitly excludes traditional casino gambling from the "swap" definition.
- These measures aim to establish the CFTC's exclusive federal jurisdiction over prediction markets.
- Prediction market operators like Kalshi have faced lawsuits from states alleging illegal gambling.
- Conflicting appellate court rulings have set the stage for a potential US Supreme Court review of federal vs. state jurisdiction.
If the CFTC's proposals are upheld and federal jurisdiction is established, it could lead to a clearer, more consistent regulatory environment for prediction markets across the United States. This clarity might encourage innovation and investment in the sector, potentially allowing these platforms to operate with greater legal certainty and expand their offerings.
Should the Supreme Court side with state regulators, prediction markets could face a patchwork of differing state laws, making it difficult and costly for platforms to operate nationally. This fragmentation could stifle growth, increase compliance burdens, and potentially lead to some prediction market services being unavailable in certain states.



