The US government has made its strongest argument to date that sports betting should be regulated as a financial activity, rather than gambling. In a recent court filing, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Department of Justice have requested a federal court to prevent Arizona from enforcing its gambling laws against Kalshi, a prediction market operator. The agencies contend that contracts related to sports, elections, and other real-world events are, in fact, financial derivatives known as 'swaps', which fall under federal jurisdiction. If the courts uphold this argument, it could result in the transfer of control over a rapidly expanding market from individual states to the federal government, allowing prediction platforms to operate across the country under a unified set of regulations.
At the heart of the case lies a fundamental question: what constitutes a bet? Arizona, along with a growing number of states, views contracts on sports outcomes as equivalent to traditional wagers and believes they should be regulated as such, with the necessary licensing requirements, age restrictions, and consumer protections in place. Arizona has taken a more aggressive stance, filing criminal charges against Kalshi under state betting laws, with an arraignment scheduled for April 13.
However, federal regulators hold a different perspective, arguing that the structure of these contracts, rather than the events they track, is the determining factor. Since the payouts are contingent upon the occurrence of a future event with potential economic consequences, these products are subject to the same legal framework as derivatives tied to commodities or interest rates. This interpretation would place prediction markets firmly under the Commodity Exchange Act, granting the CFTC 'exclusive jurisdiction'.
It would also limit the ability of individual states to shut down or restrict these platforms, a scenario that regulators warn would create a fragmented system with varying regulations across different states. The ongoing legal battle has been escalating for months, yielding conflicting rulings.
A federal appeals court in New Jersey recently ruled in favor of Kalshi, determining that its sports contracts are presumptively allowed under federal law unless the CFTC intervenes. In contrast, courts in other jurisdictions have been more receptive to state arguments, permitting enforcement actions to proceed. The government has cautioned that allowing states to prosecute federally regulated exchanges would undermine a national market that Congress intended to oversee at the federal level. Ultimately, if the courts accept the CFTC's position, prediction markets could operate nationwide under a single federal framework, effectively bypassing the current state-by-state system governing sports betting.
Conversely, if the courts reject this argument, these products could be forced into existing gambling regimes or shut down altogether in key jurisdictions. For the time being, the federal government is adopting an expansive view of its authority, arguing that a contract related to the Super Bowl is not fundamentally different from one tied to oil prices or interest rates.
The courts must now decide whether this comparison is valid.