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: 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.
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
