Key Points
- Federal regulators instructed prediction market operators to eliminate American-style moneyline betting odds formats
- CFTC guidance emphasized platforms must avoid misleading practices in product listings, marketing and customer solicitation
- Kalshi announced plans to meet compliance requirements before the regulator’s specified deadline
- New York state prosecutors filed legal action against Kalshi, claiming unauthorized gambling operations with potential damages reaching $36 billion
- Utah federal judge determined state gambling enforcement authority extends to prediction market operators like Kalshi
The United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued formal notifications to prediction market operators under its supervision, directing them to discontinue American-style gambling odds presentations. These communications also emphasized adherence to federal derivative trading regulations and warned against misleading promotional tactics.
Moneyline odds, the traditional American format, present potential returns on a standard $100 wager through positive or negative numerical indicators. Prediction market platforms conventionally price contracts in cent denominations that represent event probability estimates.
Research referenced in the CFTC’s correspondence demonstrated that moneyline odds formatting encouraged higher-risk behavior in sports wagering contexts. The commission has consistently maintained it possesses singular regulatory authority over prediction market operations.
Kalshi acknowledged receipt of the regulatory notice and committed to meeting compliance standards within the established timeframe. Neither Polymarket nor the CFTC provided responses to media inquiries.
States Escalate Regulatory Enforcement
This federal directive arrives amid escalating state-level challenges to prediction market platforms. New York’s chief legal officer initiated litigation against Kalshi, alleging operation of unauthorized gambling enterprises without proper licensing. Prosecutors are pursuing financial penalties potentially totaling $36 billion.
Nevada authorities obtained judicial authorization preventing prediction markets from facilitating sports-related contracts within state boundaries. A federal Wisconsin court indicated state gambling statutes might govern sports prediction market activities.
Yesterday, Utah’s federal judiciary confirmed the state possesses authority to apply anti-gambling legislation against prediction market services, specifically naming Kalshi. The company had previously initiated legal proceedings challenging Utah’s regulatory restrictions and announced intentions to pursue appellate review.
Legal analyst Daniel Wallach reported on X that Kalshi submitted urgent injunction requests to Utah’s federal court. The organization seeks accelerated judicial intervention, concerned state prosecutors might pursue civil or criminal proceedings during the appeals process.
Utah’s chief legal officer Derek Brown indicated enforcement measures will proceed imminently, though specific strategies remain under consideration.
Federal Agency Challenges State Jurisdiction
CFTC Chairman Michael Selig has consistently asserted the commission maintains comprehensive statutory jurisdiction over prediction market platforms. He has initiated litigation against multiple states defending this position and commenced formal regulatory rulemaking procedures.
Both Kalshi and Polymarket have endorsed CFTC regulatory oversight of their operations. These platforms have achieved multibillion-dollar market valuations amid expanding user adoption.
Congressional members and tribal gaming authorities are now advocating for legislative measures protecting state jurisdiction over sports wagering. These proposals aim to restrict prediction markets from encroaching on domains historically regulated at the state level.
The Utah court decision represents Kalshi’s latest judicial defeat, occurring mere days following the state tribunal’s determination. The company’s appellate challenge will serve as the next critical milestone in this developing regulatory dispute.


