Operators of prediction markets are urging US regulators to narrowly define ‘gaming’, aiming to exclude sports-related contracts from restrictions that threaten the sector’s viability, amid ongoing legal and regulatory disputes.
Prediction market operators are pressing U.S. regulators to draw a much tighter line around what counts as “gaming”, arguing that the current language could sweep in sports-related event contracts and effectively force much of the sector out of business. In a letter to Christopher Kirkpatrick, secretary of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Coalition for Prediction Markets said the agency should confine the term to casino-style activity, not contracts linked to sporting outcomes or other real-world events.
That push lands in the middle of a broader fight over who should police event contracts. The CFTC oversees these products because they are structured as swaps, but its rules also bar contracts tied to “gaming”, terrorism, war, assassination and unlawful activity, or anything the agency deems contrary to the public interest. The commission has previously said the gaming ban can apply broadly, including in its 2023 action against Kalshi’s political control contracts, which it said involved gaming and were unlawful under state law.
The coalition’s argument reflects a regulatory shift that has been building since the CFTC proposed broader amendments to its event-contract rules in 2024, before later withdrawing those proposals in March 2026 amid continuing state litigation and related regulatory disputes. In the public comment process now under way, the CFTC itself has said it favours a narrower understanding of gaming, one focused on casino-style play. But legal uncertainty remains, with Ninth Circuit judges recently questioning whether casino gaming could really be separated from sports betting, given that both involve wagering.
Sports leagues and tribal gaming interests have used the comment period to warn that event contracts can replicate gambling while lacking the safeguards that usually come with licensed sports books. Their filings have called for stronger controls, including a minimum age of 21, faster reporting of suspicious trades, tighter data-sharing between platforms and restrictions on higher-risk contracts tied to injuries, officiating calls or in-game events. Some commenters went further, saying contracts that amount to betting on non-economic outcomes should be treated as plainly prohibited under the Commodity Exchange Act.
Source Reference Map
Inspired by headline at: [1]
Sources by paragraph:
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
10
Notes:
The article was published on May 1, 2026, and there are no indications of recycled or outdated content. The information appears current and original.
Quotes check
Score:
8
Notes:
The article includes direct quotes from the Coalition for Prediction Markets (CPM) and references to legal proceedings. While the quotes are not independently verifiable online, they are consistent with the context of the article. The lack of direct online verification is a concern, but the quotes are plausible within the reported context.
Source reliability
Score:
6
Notes:
Casino.org is a niche publication focusing on gaming news. While it provides detailed coverage, its reach and reputation are limited compared to major news organisations. The article cites specific legal cases and regulatory bodies, which adds credibility, but the source’s overall reliability is moderate.
Plausibility check
Score:
7
Notes:
The article discusses ongoing legal and regulatory debates over prediction markets, which aligns with recent developments in the field. However, the lack of direct quotes from primary sources or independent verification of the claims raises some doubts about the full accuracy of the reported events.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): FAIL
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The article presents information on the Coalition for Prediction Markets urging the CFTC to redefine ‘gaming’ in relation to event contracts. While the content appears current and original, the lack of independently verifiable quotes and reliance on a single, niche source raises concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the information. The absence of corroboration from other reputable sources further diminishes confidence in the article’s credibility.
