Disputes involving markets in contracts whose payouts depend on future events.
Case
Connecticut's September action against nine prediction-market companies intensified a dispute over sports-event contracts. State officials invoke gambling laws and consumer safeguards, while the CFTC argues that federal authority displaces the challenged restrictions.
Role at the time: Executive director, Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling
Responding to
Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?
“We support the state’s efforts, including seeking judicial remedies”
Her express approval supports enforcement; it does not merely describe it.
Role at the time: Governor of Connecticut
Responding to
Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?
“they are not adhering to Connecticut’s consumer protection standards”
He criticizes alleged failures and misleading assurances, beyond disputing terminology.
Role at the time: Kalshi spokesperson
Responding to
Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?
“You don't protect consumers by blocking exchanges that are actually regulated”
She criticizes the restriction itself, arguing it harms consumers.
Role at the time: Connecticut Commissioner of Consumer Protection
Responding to
The Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection argues that the sports-event products named in its September announcement must comply with the state's gambling licensing and consumer-protection requirements.
“sports betting may only be offered by legal, licensed sportsbooks that adhere to our regulations and technical standards”
Cafferelli invokes mandatory state licensing and consumer protection to justify the announced enforcement. This substantively supports the state's action; it does more than dispute terminology for the products.
Role at the time: Attorney General of Connecticut
Responding to
Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?
“None of that is happening now on Kalshi, and we’re suing to put a stop to it”
Tong denounces alleged failures to protect consumers and says the state is suing to stop them. This expresses substantive criticism, not only a dispute over how sports contracts are characterized.
Role at the time: Head of litigation at Kalshi
Responding to
Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?
“This unequal treatment is exactly why federal oversight is necessary.”
Dedaj's unequal-treatment argument criticizes Connecticut's enforcement choices. It substantively rejects the state's approach rather than merely disputing terminology.
Role at the time: Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Responding to
Can Connecticut regulate sports prediction markets as gambling?
“The CFTC will continue to safeguard its exclusive regulatory authority over these markets and defend market participants against overzealous state regulators”
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.
Executive Director at Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling
1 case and 1 statement
Governor of Connecticut
1 case and 1 statement
Kalshi spokesperson and former Special Assistant to the President of the United States
1 case and 1 statement
CFTC chairman quoted in the agency's April 2, 2026 announcement of lawsuits challenging state restrictions on prediction markets.
1 case and 1 statement
Connecticut consumer protection commissioner identified in the state's September 10, 2026 prediction-markets announcement.
1 case and 1 statement
Connecticut attorney general
1 case and 1 statement
Kalshi head of litigation
1 case and 1 statement
