The two tribes jointly defended Connecticut's prohibition of sports prediction markets
Mohegan TribeJoint testimony of the Mohegan Tribe and Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation
The two tribes jointly defended Connecticut's prohibition of sports prediction markets. They opposed a narrower age-restriction bill because they said it could legitimize products already barred by state law.
“prediction markets involving gaming (including sporting events) are already illegal in Connecticut”
Original text
Where this statement fits
Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?
Connecticut announced enforcement against nine prediction-market companies on September 10, 2026. The action sharpened an existing dispute with the CFTC over whether sports-event contracts are subject to state gambling laws or exclusive federal commodities regulation.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
The two tribes jointly defended Connecticut's prohibition of sports prediction markets. They opposed a narrower age-restriction bill because they said it could legitimize products already barred by state law.
Before the quotation
HB 5038 proposed age restrictions on prediction-market participation.
After the quotation
The tribes argued that the proposed restrictions could legitimize products they considered already illegal.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Defends state prohibition; opposing a narrower bill does not mean supporting the markets.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseConnecticut’s attorney general: sports event contracts are “not magically shielded by federal law”
“This is nothing more than the recycling of failed arguments from other prediction markets. Multiple courts have affirmed that sports event contracts are no different than sports betting and are not magically shielded by federal law.”Read statement
Cafferelli says four of nine companies are engaging with Connecticut
“We have received a handful of responses to our actions last week... We are working with those who have responded on next steps.”Read statement
Underdog sues Connecticut over prediction-market enforcement
Underdog
“Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. v. Tong, No. 3:26-cv-01499 (D. Conn.), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on Commodity Exchange Act preemption grounds.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- The two tribes jointly defended Connecticut's prohibition of sports prediction markets
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/4258-the-two-tribes-jointly-defended-connecticut-s-prohibition
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "The two tribes jointly defended Connecticut's prohibition of sports prediction markets". First published: 2026-10-01. Last updated: 2026-10-01. https://disputeindex.com/events/4258-the-two-tribes-jointly-defended-connecticut-s-prohibition