Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Prediction Markets Are Gambling, Despite What They Tell The Government

Opinion

Prediction Markets Are Gambling, Despite What They Tell The Government
person using smartphone

“Kalshi Offers $1 Billion for a Perfect March Madness Bracket.” The company’s recent website headline is exactly what you would see on a sportsbook ad to lure in zealous gamblers and soon-to-be gamblers. But despite the marketing blitz aimed at the public, in legal circles and before government regulators, Kalshi and competitor Polymarket claim to be financial exchange platforms. For everyday Americans, the pitfalls are troubling.

Prediction market companies like Kalshi are selling their services as investment tools, prodding Americans to use their knowledge of world events, political dynamics, sports, and other topics to pad their pockets.


There was a fair amount of attention to these markets when reports came out showing how a small handful of users made large sums of cash, $2.4 million in one case, wagering on operational details of President Trump’s military actions against Iran.

For Americans with much less insider knowledge, the rapid rise of these platforms represents a new and unsettling “get-rich-quick” scheme that is separating families from their hard-earned money at a time when they can least afford it.

The prediction platforms allow users to place wagers on the outcomes of various sporting contests and events within games. Users can wager on point spreads, “over/unders”, and player proposition bets (“props”).

At the same time, the platforms present sports betting as “investing,” lowering users’ guard and masking the risks. The unassuming user would have no idea that they are using a platform that isn’t held to the same regulatory standards as legal sportsbooks. Even the user interface mirrors a sportsbook.

The sheer volume of this unregulated activity is enormous. During this year’s opening round of the Men’s and Women’s March Madness college basketball tournaments, Kalshi alone saw more than $800 million wagered on its "contracts."

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of activity on U.S. prediction markets is just plain old sports gambling.

Meanwhile, the platforms are wrapping themselves in financial terminology before regulators to claim their products are akin to financial derivatives tied to commodities like wheat and copper futures. Regulators at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have lent their credibility to this view.

In addition to the platforms' faulty substantive claims, the CFTC lacks the commensurate resources to govern the rapidly evolving prediction market space. For example, the Chicago enforcement division of the CFTC recently went from 20 trial attorneys to zero—not an especially encouraging sign for the agency.

The CFTC decision suddenly made prediction markets available to anyone 18 or older anywhere in the country—even in states that have not legalized sports betting.

In states that have legalized sports betting, prediction market platforms can now avoid age restrictions, gambling taxes, requirements for responsible gaming resources, and other regulations that lawmakers and voters established as part of decisions to greenlight sports betting in their jurisdictions. Prediction markets completely lack the consumer safeguards that apply to legal sportsbooks.

By magnifying the problem for users, this regulatory backdoor is paving the way for an alarming lack of transparency, allowing prediction market platforms to mislead people into believing they are making financial investments while providing a wild-west of gambling options.

Of course, prediction market platforms say they are providing an innovative service and increasing access to financial opportunities for normal people. That would be nice, except for the discrepancies between what they say to policymakers and how they present themselves to consumers, which show otherwise.

Wrapping gambling activity in investment terminology serves only to mislead Americans. Muddying the distinctions between these two activities allows platforms to prey on Americans with lower levels of financial literacy and lower incomes—populations where even relatively small financial losses can have significant long-term consequences.

True innovation in the financial services industry should be about expanding pathways for wealth creation and opportunity.

With the economic effects of tariffs, war, and inflation, families across the country are increasingly facing substantial headwinds as they struggle to pursue the American dream.

Without meaningful regulatory change, users will continue to be too easily lured into repeatedly funneling more money into their accounts, diverting funds from real investments, such as savings, education, or other long-term financial goals.

Policymakers need to close the regulatory gap between how prediction markets actually function and how they are marketed once and for all, starting with putting the brakes on so-called “sports event contracts,” sports betting by another name.

The lines between gambling and investing are being blurred to an indistinguishable degree, leaving everyday Americans, especially those who are financially vulnerable, at risk.

Mario H. Lopez is the president of the Hispanic Leadership Fund, a public policy advocacy organization that promotes liberty, opportunity, and prosperity for all.


Read More

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less
Towards a Reformed Capitalism
oval brown wooden conference table and chairs inside conference room

Towards a Reformed Capitalism

Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.

The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.

Keep ReadingShow less
Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

The Bring Our Families Home campaign brought together loved ones of Americans wrongly detained overseas to display portraits in the Senate Russell Rotunda on Wednesday, May 6.

(Jacques Abou-Rizk, MNS)

Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON – American journalist Reza Valizadeh visited his elderly Iranian parents in March 2024 for the first time in 15 years. Valizadeh’s stories for Voice of America and other U.S. government-funded outlets often criticized the Iranian regime. So before traveling, he sought and received confirmation that he would be safe from a high-ranking commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of Iran’s armed forces. However, in September that same year, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps arrested Valizadeh, and Tehran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced him to ten years in prison for “collaboration with a hostile government.”

In the Rotunda of the Senate Russell Building last week, the Bring Our Families Home campaign set up portraits of Valizadeh and 12 other Americans currently wrongfully detained overseas. The group, family members of illegitimately detained Americans, appealed to Congress to push for their safe return. Each foam poster board included the name, home state, and country of detainment. The display also included portraits of the 33 people released after advocacy by the James W. Foley Foundation.

Keep ReadingShow less