Bipartisan Bill Seeks To Ban Sports Betting On Prediction Market Platforms 24
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Senators Adam Schiff (D-CA) and John Curtis (R-UT) introduced (PDF) a bill on Monday that could prevent prediction market platforms Kalshi and Polymarket from allowing users to wager money on sports events or play casino-style games. This bipartisan bill would not apply to FanDuel and DraftKings, which are subject to state-by-state gambling laws, rather than federal ones. "Sports prediction contracts are sports bets -- just with a different name. And yet, these contracts are currently offered in all fifty states in clear violation of state and federal law," Schiff said in a statement.
Prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket are regulated under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which is why Schiff and Curtis are able to address them under federal jurisdiction, rather than leaving them to state-regulated sportsbooks. But these senators argue that there isn't much of a difference in practice between betting on sports via federally or state-regulated apps. Kalshi's Super Bowl trading volume, for instance, reached over $1 billion this year -- a 2700% increase year-over-year. "Too many young people in Utah are getting exposed to addictive sports betting and casino-style gaming contracts that belong under state control, not under federal regulators," Curtis said in a statement. The report notes that Kalshi is temporarily banned in Nevada and is facing criminal charges in Arizona. "Kalshi may brand itself as a 'prediction market,' but what it's actually doing is running an illegal gambling operation and taking bets on Arizona elections, both of which violate Arizona law," Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said in a statement last week.
Prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket are regulated under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which is why Schiff and Curtis are able to address them under federal jurisdiction, rather than leaving them to state-regulated sportsbooks. But these senators argue that there isn't much of a difference in practice between betting on sports via federally or state-regulated apps. Kalshi's Super Bowl trading volume, for instance, reached over $1 billion this year -- a 2700% increase year-over-year. "Too many young people in Utah are getting exposed to addictive sports betting and casino-style gaming contracts that belong under state control, not under federal regulators," Curtis said in a statement. The report notes that Kalshi is temporarily banned in Nevada and is facing criminal charges in Arizona. "Kalshi may brand itself as a 'prediction market,' but what it's actually doing is running an illegal gambling operation and taking bets on Arizona elections, both of which violate Arizona law," Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said in a statement last week.
All it takes in our economy (Score:2)
All it takes in our economy is a little grease and rules don't matter. There's an entire class of people that think that as long as Trump is never punished, they can do anything they want.
After all, a pardon is $2M.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile today Donald Trump was talking about a bill he wanted to pass and halfway through his sentence he stopped talking about the bill and started talking about a random non-existent person named Bill.
I know if you put enough drugs in him he can stay cognizant for long enough to make it through important speeches but can you imagine i
need to ban Predictions on voteing and war as well (Score:3)
need to ban Predictions on voteing and war as well!
Re: (Score:2)
Or really, just ban the entire site altogether. Why do we need to gamble on all this stuff in the first place? It puts in a lot of perverse incentives and it's not good for our society. It's especially toxic in that it's advertised to our teenagers/young adults who's minds are not yet developed and struggle to make informed decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Or really, just ban the entire site altogether. Why do we need to gamble on all this stuff in the first place? It puts in a lot of perverse incentives and it's not good for our society. It's especially toxic in that it's advertised to our teenagers/young adults who's minds are not yet developed and struggle to make informed decisions.
Alcohol isn't good for our society, so let's ban it. Neither are cigarettes. Neither are Doritos, Tostitos, or any other itos. Same with chips. High in fat and cholesterol. Certainly they aren't good either. While we're at it, let's ban cocaine, methamphetamine, ketamine, marijuana and all other such drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
With gambling (yes this is exactly the same as placing money on a prediction) there is no commerce and NO PRODUCT to purchase, it's gambling. IMHO gambling should not be allowed to cross state lines - so these predatory companies should only be allowed to operate in their home state of NEW YORK.
Re: (Score:2)
Gambling needs to be for games and nothing else or there is far too much incentive to interfere with the events being gambled on. It is inherently dangerous to our ability to understand what is going on. It actually is bad for society in a way that should be absolutely banned.
Re: (Score:2)
Predictions markets get you stuff like this. https://cointelegraph.com/news [cointelegraph.com] Journalist getting threatened with death.
But sure, that really compares to:
Alcohol isn't good for our society, so let's ban it. Neither are cigarettes. Neither are Doritos, Tostitos, or any other itos. Same with chips. High in fat and cholesterol. Certainly they aren't good either. While we're at it, let's ban cocaine, methamphetamine, ketamine, marijuana and all other such drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell you what, chief - when someone starts making death threats to reporters because they write a story about someone buying a dime bag, you might have a point.
Because that's happening with this illegal gambling. You are mixing unregulated gambling, addiction, and financial instruments all in one very bad cocktail. People are arguably already participating through criminal means (insider information, etc.) probably aren't going to get shy about doing other criminal acts if they can figure out how to do it
Re: (Score:2)
How about we lock these fuckers up with the wall street gamblers too. No, I don't need your exposition about market liquidity; you are the fucking problem if you are thinking this way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This idea that you can just declare yourself a prediction market and therefore above state law is cuckoo bananas.
1. Raise venture capital for a online business scheme that would otherwise be illegal (flouting labor laws, dumping e-scooters all over a city, gambling, etc.).
2. Use some of the money you made to bribe politicians, so now your idea is legal.
3. Profit!
halfway measures (Score:3)
commercial betting needs to be banned in its entirety and without any exceptions
Unfinished Work, D+ (Score:3)
Ban prediction markets, you craven morons.
Gambling should at a casino (Score:2)
If you're going to gamble away your kids' college savings you should at least be required to put on pants.
Re: (Score:2)
As bad as it is, (Score:2)
Oh, you won’t do that, eh?
Office sports betting was my favorite example (Score:2)
Office sports betting is illegal yet at every big company I worked for these betting sheets went around every season with management and the rest distributing them. This was my favorite example of how white collar crime is treated compared to blue collar.
At every level the people who should stop it instead felt it was a harmless office game and thus not worthy of any application of the rules. One dude was dropping over a grand on these while his kids went without coats. Like a closeted gambler and he was br
Irrelevant (Score:1)
Meanwhile... (Score:3)
What are the odds of it passing? (Score:2)
Put me down for 20.
Allowing online gambling was such a mistake. (Score:2)
It's ruining sports across the board for many people, and I really hate that it's leaked out of Vegas the way that it has.
Nothing like seeing FanDuel and Draft Kings ads on what feels like every sporting event under the sun.
I'm so sick of seeing gambling advertisements.
Facts Only
Senators Adam Schiff (D-CA) and John Curtis (R-UT) introduced a bipartisan bill on Monday to ban sports betting and casino-style games on prediction market platforms.
The bill targets platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket, which are regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
The legislation does not apply to state-regulated sportsbooks like FanDuel and DraftKings.
Kalshi reported over $1 billion in Super Bowl trading volume this year, a 2700% increase from the previous year.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes accused Kalshi of operating an illegal gambling operation and violating state law by allowing bets on Arizona elections.
Kalshi is temporarily banned in Nevada and faces criminal charges in Arizona.
Senator Curtis expressed concern about young people in Utah being exposed to addictive sports betting and casino-style gaming contracts.
The bill argues that prediction markets function similarly to traditional sports betting despite operating under federal rather than state regulation.
Public commentary includes debates about the societal harms of gambling, regulatory inconsistencies, and the ethical implications of prediction markets.
Some commenters advocate for banning all commercial betting, while others compare gambling to other regulated vices like alcohol and tobacco.
Concerns are raised about the potential for prediction markets to incentivize manipulation of events being wagered on.
The discussion includes critiques of the normalization of gambling in sports culture and the influence of lobbying in shaping gambling laws.
Executive Summary
A bipartisan bill introduced by Senators Adam Schiff (D-CA) and John Curtis (R-UT) seeks to ban sports betting and casino-style games on prediction market platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket. These platforms operate under federal regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), unlike state-regulated sportsbooks such as FanDuel and DraftKings. The senators argue that prediction markets function similarly to traditional sports betting, with Kalshi reporting over $1 billion in Super Bowl trading volume this year—a 2700% year-over-year increase. Critics, including Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, accuse Kalshi of operating as an illegal gambling operation, particularly for allowing bets on elections. The bill aims to close what lawmakers see as a regulatory loophole, though it does not affect state-licensed gambling operators. Public commentary in the discussion thread reflects broader debates about the societal harms of gambling, regulatory inconsistencies, and the ethical implications of prediction markets.
The bill highlights tensions between federal and state oversight of gambling, with some arguing that prediction markets exploit regulatory gaps to offer unchecked betting opportunities. Others question the necessity of such markets, citing risks of addiction, financial harm, and potential manipulation of events being wagered on. The discussion also touches on broader issues like the normalization of gambling in sports culture and the influence of lobbying in shaping gambling laws.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative frames prediction markets as a regulatory loophole that enables unchecked gambling under the guise of financial innovation. Proponents of the bill argue that platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket operate as de facto sportsbooks, exploiting federal oversight to bypass state gambling laws. The senators' concerns about addiction and the exposure of young people to gambling are bolstered by the rapid growth of these markets, with Kalshi's Super Bowl trading volume surging 2700% year-over-year. The inclusion of critiques from Arizona’s attorney general, who accuses Kalshi of illegal election betting, adds legal weight to the argument that these platforms are operating outside intended regulatory boundaries.
However, the narrative also reveals deeper tensions about the role of gambling in society. The public commentary reflects a spectrum of opinions, from calls for outright bans on all commercial betting to comparisons with other regulated vices like alcohol and tobacco. Some argue that prediction markets introduce perverse incentives, potentially encouraging manipulation of real-world events for financial gain. Others highlight the hypocrisy of white-collar office betting pools being tolerated while blue-collar gambling faces stricter enforcement. The discussion also touches on the broader cultural shift toward normalized gambling, fueled by ubiquitous advertising from platforms like FanDuel and DraftKings.
At its core, this debate is about regulatory capture and the commodification of uncertainty. The bill’s focus on prediction markets—rather than state-licensed sportsbooks—raises questions about who benefits from the current system. Are federal regulators better equipped to oversee these markets, or is this a case of regulatory arbitrage where platforms exploit gaps in oversight? The second-order implications are significant: if prediction markets are allowed to proliferate, they could further erode public trust in institutions by turning civic events (like elections) into speculative assets. The bridge questions here are critical: How do we balance innovation with consumer protection? Should all forms of gambling be subject to the same regulatory standards, regardless of their framing? And what does it say about our society when financial speculation extends to the outcomes of elections and other civic processes?
Patterns detected: ARC-0024 Ambiguity (framing prediction markets as distinct from gambling despite functional similarities), ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey (defending prediction markets as financial tools while operating as gambling platforms).
If this were part of a coordinated influence campaign, the playbook might involve framing prediction markets as harmless financial innovation while downplaying their gambling aspects, leveraging regulatory ambiguity to avoid state oversight, and using lobbying to shape federal policy. The actual content aligns with this pattern to some extent, particularly in how prediction markets are defended as distinct from traditional gambling despite their operational similarities. However, the inclusion of bipartisan criticism and legal challenges suggests a genuine policy debate rather than a purely manipulative effort.
Sentinel — Human
The article and comments exhibit strong human signals, including emotional language, stylistic inconsistencies, and organic debate, with no clear signs of AI generation.