After Yesterday's Hearing, Congress Looks Ready to Legislate on Prediction Markets — Not Just Watch
The House Agriculture Subcommittee held a two-hour hearing on July 22 examining sports event contracts, with witnesses from the American Gaming Association, tribal gaming, and both sides of the CFTC authority debate. Subcommittee Chair Dusty Johnson said Congress 'cannot afford to be silent' and signaled there is 'work for them to do.' Witnesses urged members to advance H.R. 7840, the Event Contract Enforcement Act, which would ban sports event contracts outright. The hearing adds a third front to a fight that is already being waged simultaneously in ten state courts and at the CFTC.
The House Agriculture Subcommittee on Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development held a two-hour hearing on July 22 titled 'Examining Customer Protections and Market Integrity in Sports Event Prediction Markets.' The session was more hostile to prediction markets than the May Senate hearing that preceded it. Subcommittee Chair Dusty Johnson (R-SD) opened by saying it is 'abundantly clear that Congress cannot afford to be silent' on the issue, and closed by saying there is 'work for them to do' — the clearest signal yet from a committee chairman with jurisdiction over the CFTC that congressional action on prediction markets is now likely, not hypothetical.
The hearing heard testimony for H.R. 7840, the Event Contract Enforcement Act, which would prohibit sports event contracts on prediction market platforms nationwide — a statutory ban that would resolve the CFTC-versus-states question by simply removing the product category from federal permissibility. Rep. Jill Tokuda (D-HI) was the session's most direct voice: 'This is gambling. It's gambling.' Tokuda noted that prediction markets have been actively marketed as gambling by the operators themselves — a factual point that sits in tension with the legal argument that event contracts are financial instruments, not wagers. She also observed that the current federal structure effectively makes sports-outcome speculation available to any American over 18, in all 50 states, irrespective of whether their state has legalized sports betting. Eleven states have not.
Pro-prediction-market witnesses — led by former CFTC attorneys Robert Schwartz and Carl Kennedy — argued that the CFTC already possesses the statutory authority to regulate sports event contracts under the Commodity Exchange Act, and that new legislation is neither necessary nor desirable while courts are still working through the preemption questions. Solidus Labs CEO Asaf Meir defended the integrity-monitoring infrastructure in place on prediction market platforms, countering the AGA's argument that unlicensed prediction markets create the same sports corruption risks as sportsbooks without the same oversight. The absence of any representative from Kalshi, Polymarket, or any other prediction market platform at the witness table was noted: the industry's legal representatives spoke, but the industry itself did not appear.
The hearing adds a third active front to a fight that is already being waged simultaneously in ten state courts and through the CFTC's own proposed rulemaking — whose public comment window closes July 27. The practical significance of the congressional front is that legislation supersedes both. If H.R. 7840 or a similar bill were to pass, it would moot the CFTC's proposed rule and resolve all ten state lawsuits in the states' favor by removing the federal basis for prediction market sports contracts entirely. That outcome is not imminent — the Republican majority on the Agriculture Committee has been more sympathetic to CFTC authority than Democrats, and Chair Johnson stopped short of endorsing any specific bill. But the session made clear that the prediction markets sector now has to manage a congressional timeline as well as a judicial one.
Operators mentioned in this article
Recent updates
Kalshi's Parlays Drive Back-to-Back $5B Days — and Hand Critics Their Strongest Argument
Kalshi traded a record $5.33 billion on November 7 and $5.36 billion on November 8, with multi-leg parlay-style 'combos' making up roughly 75% of both days' volume. Its 30-day volume topped $100 billion. But the parlay dominance cuts against the platform's legal defense: parlays are a quintessential sportsbook product, and the American Gaming Association has told the Second Circuit that parlays make up about two-thirds of Kalshi's volume and should be treated as sports bets. The implied house edge on 10-plus-leg combos is around 25%, undercutting the argument that these are neutral financial instruments rather than gambling.
Cruz Bill Would Require State or Tribal Approval for Sports Contracts — a Bipartisan Legislative Threat Emerges
Senator Ted Cruz, who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, is preparing a bill that would bar federally regulated prediction markets from offering gambling-tied event contracts, including sports, unless a state or tribal government authorizes them. It would not ban the contracts nationwide but would require platforms to obtain approval jurisdiction by jurisdiction, resembling state-by-state sportsbook regulation. The proposal arrives as Democrats take control of both chambers after the midterms, creating a potential bipartisan reckoning: a Republican committee chair and a newly skeptical Democratic majority both eyeing restrictions on a sector that had relied on federal protection.
CFTC Tells Platforms to Stop Geofencing States — Directly Colliding With State Court Orders
The CFTC issued an interpretation on November 5 of its 'impartial access' core principle, telling regulated exchanges including Kalshi and Polymarket to drop state-by-state geographic blocks within 30 days or explain why they cannot. The demand collides head-on with existing state court orders that require the platforms to geofence: Washington ordered Kalshi to geofence in August, and Michigan ordered it to use licensed geolocation to block the state in September, with a $500,000 daily fine for violations. Chairman Michael Selig framed the interpretation as a uniformity requirement. The platforms are now caught between a federal demand to unblock states and state court orders to block them.