Today's

top partner

for CFD

The fight over U.S. prediction markets has reached a new level of institutional confrontation. The fight is increasingly centering on federal preemption and the CFTC’s authority over event contracts.

In testimony before a Senate subcommittee on Wednesday, American Gaming Association CEO Bill Miller called the CFTC a “rogue agency” and accused it of making a “mockery of congressional intent” by allowing financial exchanges to facilitate what he called “backdoor sports betting.”

The attack cuts to a specific legal question. For brokers and infrastructure providers watching from the B2B side, the real issue is the federal preemption doctrine – the principle that a CFTC license as a DCM or DCO shields a firm from having to comply with 50 different state-level regimes.

The appeal of the federal framework is already reshaping business decisions. Sporttrade recently shut down its sportsbook operations to pursue CFTC exchange and clearinghouse status instead.

“The CFTC was created to regulate markets critical to the functioning of the nation’s economy, not to regulate ‘Monday Night Football,'” Miller told lawmakers, arguing the agency is reclassifying gambling as financial swaps.

A Multi-Front Regulatory Conflict

The AGA’s rhetorical offensive tracks an active legal strategy. States are already in federal court:

The CFTC recently sued Minnesota to block a law that would make operating, or even assisting a prediction market a criminal felony.

CFTC Chairman Michael Selig said the law would turn legitimate hedgers, including farmers using weather contracts, into “felons overnight.”

The agency is simultaneously in litigation with Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois, seeking to block those states from using gambling statutes to criminally prosecute federally regulated exchanges.

In New York and Massachusetts, the CFTC and federal prosecutors are contesting gaming commission actions against platforms like Kalshi, arguing federal law overrides state unlicensed gambling charges.

Former House Financial Services Chair Patrick McHenry and other industry supporters contend prediction markets hold to higher standards than casinos, including mandatory KYC/AML compliance, no access for minors, and that the comparison to gambling is the wrong frame entirely.

What This Means for Brokers

The two outcomes here are structurally different, not just legally. If the CFTC defends exclusive jurisdiction, prediction markets can be cleared, integrated, and distributed through any regulated brokerage stack.

If the states and the AGA prevail, the federal license becomes, in practical terms, unworkable. Operators would face a state-by-state licensing gauntlet and tax structures that make the asset class unscalable.

As Miller put it, states are spending “extraordinary amounts of money” to push the CFTC out of a space where, in their view, it has no legal standing. Whether that argument lands in court will determine not just the rules for prediction markets in 2026, but whether the regulatory foundation under the whole sector is solid at all.

This article was written by Tanya Chepkova at www.financemagnates.com.

— CONTENT NOT MODERATED BY G6

— Please be careful with this content. If you don’t think it should be here, please get in touch with us at [email protected]

G6 is free to use portal to find ways to improve your life. We choose carefully posts and partner with the best in field writers to bring you the best content. Since 2006, we are there for you on your way to success.

Find on Facebook Follow on Instagram Connect on LinkedIn

Don't miss out on latest news

Join newsletter

Enable notifications

You got a story to share? Questions?

Just connect our team and let's see

©2006-2023 - All rights reserved - GSIX.ORG

CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. Between 74-89% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs. You should consider whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money

All Content on this site is information of a general nature and does not address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Nothing in the Site constitutes professional and/or financial advice, nor does any information on the Site constitute a comprehensive or complete statement of the matters discussed or the law relating thereto. You alone assume the sole responsibility of evaluating the merits and risks associated with the use of any information or other Content on the Site before making any decisions based on such information or other Content. In exchange for using the Site, you agree not to hold G6, Lecira, its affiliates or any third party service provider liable for any possible claim for damages arising from any decision you make based on information or other Content made available to you through the Site.