Michael Selig criticizes state intervention in prediction markets
Michael S. SeligChairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Michael S. Selig criticized state restrictions on federally regulated event markets when the CFTC announced lawsuits against Connecticut, Arizona and Illinois.
“The CFTC will continue to safeguard its exclusive regulatory authority over these markets and defend market participants against overzealous state regulators”
Official statement
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
Official statement
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
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.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
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 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
- Michael Selig criticizes state intervention in prediction markets
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/544-michael-s-selig-criticized-state-restrictions-on-federally
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Michael Selig criticizes state intervention in prediction markets". First published: 2026-09-14. Last updated: 2026-09-14. https://disputeindex.com/events/544-michael-s-selig-criticized-state-restrictions-on-federally