Share 
Gaming Edge’s TL;DR
- Better Markets argues that modern prediction markets are effectively unregulated gambling disguised as “event contracts.”
- This claim raises urgent questions about consumer protections, state licensing, and who should police these platforms.
- The debate matters nationally because it could trigger regulatory action, enforcement, or new state-level restrictions.
Better Markets, a Washington, D.C. public policy group, released a critique saying major prediction market firms are offering betting services while using the term “event contracts” to sidestep state gaming laws.
The group argues these exchanges let users wager on everything from elections and sports to awards shows and even theological questions, and it calls that activity indistinguishable from casino or sportsbook gambling.
Better Markets wrote:
“These activities are no different in substance than gambling at a casino, sportsbook or corner bookie.”
The group highlighted its concerns that inexperienced retail investors – including young people – are being drawn into gamified finance. The group also singled out the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), saying the agency lacks the mandate, personnel, and expertise to regulate what it calls nationwide wagering under the current framework.
Complaint is fuel for some states’ fire
The critique spotlights some immediate risks:
- Weak consumer protections
- Potential exposure to gamification tactics
- Uncertainty over age and identity checks
If regulators or state attorneys general accept Better Markets’ framing, prediction market firms could be forced to obtain state gaming licenses, change product designs, or face enforcement actions.
The complaint also fuels tribal and state regulator concerns that the CFTC is an ill-fit regulator for wagering-style products, which may push oversight back to state gaming authorities or spur new federal guidance.
Based on reporting by Todd Shriber for Casino.org.
