William Tong on Prediction Markets

Disputes involving markets in contracts whose payouts depend on future events.

How we classify topics

Counts show individual statements. They do not assign an overall position.

Statement history

2 statements on this page. Dates: August 26, 2026 to September 17, 2026

2 matching statements. Dates: August 26, 2026 to September 17, 2026

2 published statements. Dates: August 26, 2026 to September 17, 2026

Defended or excused

2 published statements. Dates: August 26, 2026 to September 17, 2026

2 statements on this page. Dates: August 26, 2026 to September 17, 2026

William Tong

Role at the time: Attorney General of Connecticut, in a statement to SBC Americas

September 17, 2026Defended or excused

Statement summary

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong dismissed Underdog’s federal lawsuit as a reuse of arguments other prediction markets have already lost, and said courts have repeatedly held that sports event contracts are sports betting and are not protected from state law by federal regulation.

“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.”

Open sourceSBC Americas: Connecticut Attorney General William Tong on the Underdog suitStatement provided to SBC Americas, mid-article.

Statement given directly to the trade outlet rather than issued as a press release; the Connecticut Attorney General’s press page carries nothing on prediction markets after September 10. The same quotation appears in CT Insider syndication, where it is attributed to “an email statement Friday,” i.e. September 18, which conflicts with this outlet’s September 17 publication date.

Why we used this label

On whether Connecticut may regulate sports prediction markets as gambling, Tong defends the state’s authority to do so, which is the conduct under scrutiny here. He asserts both that the contracts are indistinguishable from sports betting and that federal commodities regulation does not displace state law, the two propositions the preemption argument turns on. He is the first Connecticut law-enforcement principal recorded in this case, alongside the consumer-protection commissioner.

Read statement Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?

William Tong

Role at the time: Attorney General of Connecticut

August 26, 2026Defended or excused

Statement summary

Tong alleges that Kalshi lacks safeguards Connecticut requires and rejects its argument that federal law shields its sports contracts from state regulation.

“None of that is happening now on Kalshi, and we’re suing to put a stop to it”

Read the official statementWilliam Tong criticizes Kalshi's consumer safeguards · Office of the Connecticut Attorney GeneralAttorney General Tong's quotation; final sentence after the list of consumer protections

Official announcement of Connecticut's lawsuit against Kalshi. Tong's statement sets out the state's allegations and rationale for suing; it is not a judicial finding.

Why we used this label

The case asks whether Connecticut can regulate sports prediction markets as gambling, and the conduct under scrutiny is the state's enforcement. Tong says Kalshi lacks the safeguards Connecticut requires and that the state is suing to stop it, which supports the enforcement, so we labeled it Defended or excused. The closest competing label is Condemned, which here would mean opposing state regulation of the markets; his criticism is aimed at Kalshi, not at the state's action. Evidence: the attorney general's announcement.

Read statement Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?