Default
Door Remote - 11 Oct 2026
This newsletter covered the possibility of the Supreme Court wading into prediction markets a month ago. That calculus hasn't changed; there is now a major circuit court split, with two appellate courts ruling that prediction markets touching sports are actually gambling products that should be regulated by the states, and one appellate court ruling it's a CFTC issue.
Breaking it down
Most of the amicus briefs filed last week urged the Supreme Court to side with the states; that is, rule that at least sports-related prediction markets are actually gambling products that should be regulated at the state level and not the federal level.
Former Senator Chris Dodd, whose name appears on the 2010 Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act at the center of this argument, said in a brief that the law was not intended to give the CFTC the authority to usurp state governments and their ability to regulate gambling.
The filing disagreed with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals panel which ruled 2-1 that the CFTC had jurisdiction over swaps and prediction markets covering sports, saying that there is a distinction between derivatives as financial instruments and sports wagers.
"Parlays that chain together multiple wagers — often on point spreads or player performances in different games, in different cities, in different sports — do not facilitate hedging or price discovery," the filing said, pointing to one example of sports-related prediction markets that have been popular. "Nor are they 'associated with' the type of 'potential financial, economic, or commercial consequences' required to qualify as swaps under the CEA."
Breaking it down
Most of the amicus briefs filed last week urged the Supreme Court to side with the states; that is, rule that at least sports-related prediction markets are actually gambling products that should be regulated at the state level and not the federal level.
Former Senator Chris Dodd, whose name appears on the 2010 Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act at the center of this argument, said in a brief that the law was not intended to give the CFTC the authority to usurp state governments and their ability to regulate gambling.
The filing disagreed with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals panel which ruled 2-1 that the CFTC had jurisdiction over swaps and prediction markets covering sports, saying that there is a distinction between derivatives as financial instruments and sports wagers.
"Parlays that chain together multiple wagers — often on point spreads or player performances in different games, in different cities, in different sports — do not facilitate hedging or price discovery," the filing said, pointing to one example of sports-related prediction markets that have been popular. "Nor are they 'associated with' the type of 'potential financial, economic, or commercial consequences' required to qualify as swaps under the CEA."