The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is urging an expedited ruling in its lawsuit against Minnesota, as the state's ban on prediction markets is set to take effect this week. Prediction markets Kalshi and Polymarket are supporting the CFTC's move.
The CFTC's push for an expedited ruling highlights the potential fragmentation of prediction market regulation if Minnesota's ban takes effect, impacting platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket and potentially creating a complex compliance landscape across states.
The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is pressing for a swift resolution in its legal battle with Minnesota, as the state's impending ban on prediction markets looms. The ban is slated to go into effect later this week, prompting the CFTC to file a request for expedited handling of its case.
The regulator sued Minnesota in May, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from taking effect. Despite a hearing, a ruling has yet to be issued. The CFTC indicated in its latest court filing that it would consider its motion constructively denied if no decision or temporary stay is granted by tomorrow, and would then seek interim appellate relief.
Prediction market platforms Kalshi and Polymarket, which also initiated similar legal actions against Minnesota seeking injunctive relief, have aligned with the CFTC. They have joined the regulator's request for a temporary administrative stay on the challenged law while their respective motions for a preliminary injunction are pending. Kalshi and Polymarket stated they would also pursue appellate relief if their motions are constructively denied.
In related developments, the Hyperliquid Policy Center (HPC) and Multicoin submitted joint comments supporting the CFTC's proposed framework for prediction markets. They argued that these platforms should be regulated by a single federal body, distinguishing them from unlicensed sports betting operations. The organizations emphasized that exchange-traded contracts differ structurally from wagers against a bookmaker, a distinction they believe Congress recognized when granting the CFTC jurisdiction. They further contended that subjecting crypto prediction market platforms to fifty different state gambling laws would undermine the unified regulatory approach intended by Congress.