Michael Selig criticizes state intervention in prediction markets

Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission

The CFTC will continue to safeguard its exclusive regulatory authority over these markets and defend market participants against overzealous state regulators

The full case

Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?

Explore the case context, sources and public responses.

Read the full case

Source and context

Official statement

CFTC announces lawsuits against Connecticut, Arizona and Illinois (opens in a new tab) - Commodity Futures Trading CommissionRelease 9206-26; opening paragraph and Chairman Michael S. Selig quotation

About this source

The agency's April announcement identifies Connecticut among three states it sued. Selig's quoted position concerns that earlier dispute; it is not a response to the September orders. His description of federal authority is the agency's position.

Original text

United States and CFTC v. Connecticut: federal complaint (opens in a new tab) - Commodity Futures Trading CommissionCase 3:26-cv-00498, Document 1; paragraphs 1–10, 22–24 and 68–71; requested relief, printed pages 23 onward

About this source

Federal plaintiffs argue that federal commodities law displaces the challenged Connecticut restrictions on qualifying exchange-traded event contracts. This complaint states their legal position and requests relief; it is not a judicial ruling. It predates the September nine-company announcement.

Before the quotation

The CFTC announces federal lawsuits against three states, including Connecticut, over restrictions on CFTC-registered markets.

After the quotation

Selig argues that a national framework better protects consumers than conflicting state obligations. This April statement predates Connecticut's September nine-company announcement and is included as background to the same jurisdiction dispute.

Condemned
How this statement is classified

Selig criticizes the state regulators' intervention and argues that inconsistent requirements undermine consumer protection. That is substantive criticism of the challenged restrictions, beyond a disagreement over how to describe the contracts.

Recorded on
Published here
People and groups discussed
Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection

More from this case

Read the full case