Share 
Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev., is intensifying her opposition to sports-event prediction markets, asking the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s Office of Inspector General to investigate what she describes as the agency’s increasingly aggressive approach toward state regulators.
In a June 1 letter to CFTC Inspector General Christopher Skinner, Titus was joined by Reps. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and Jared Huffman, D-Calif. The lawmakers requested a review of the agency’s legal strategy, regulatory reversals and use of resources as it defends prediction market operators offering sports-event contracts.
Lawmakers question CFTC’s litigation strategy
The lawmakers’ concerns center on the CFTC’s decision to sue multiple states that sought to restrict sports-event contracts offered by federally regulated prediction market platforms.
The agency has filed actions against states, including Wisconsin, New York, Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Minnesota and Rhode Island, arguing that Congress granted the CFTC exclusive authority over regulated event contracts. State regulators, meanwhile, contend that many of these products function as sports betting and should be subject to state gaming laws.
Wisconsin emerged as a key battleground after state officials sued Kalshi, Polymarket, Robinhood, Coinbase and Crypto.com, alleging the companies were operating unlawful sports-betting products under the guise of financial instruments. The CFTC responded with its own lawsuit, arguing that state enforcement efforts interfere with federal law.
Titus and her colleagues also questioned whether the agency’s litigation campaign aligns with previous statements from CFTC Chair Michael Selig suggesting that courts should resolve disputes over sports-event contracts.
CFTC’s withdrawn guidnce draws new questions
The letter also highlights the agency’s changing regulatory posture.
In 2024, the CFTC proposed amendments to Regulation 40.11 that would have clarified how the agency evaluates event contracts involving gaming-related activities. In 2025, agency staff issued guidance advising prediction-market operators to exercise caution when offering sports-event contracts while legal disputes remained unresolved.
Both actions were later withdrawn, a move the lawmakers describe as a significant policy reversal. They argue that rescinding the guidance and abandoning the proposed rulemaking left market participants, states and consumers with less regulatory clarity.
The issue has taken on added significance following the CFTC’s June 2026 proposal to establish a formal regulatory framework for prediction markets, including many sports-event contracts. Supporters say the proposal would provide long-awaited certainty, while critics argue it could undermine state gaming laws and tribal gaming agreements.
Critics ask whether CFTC is overextended
Titus, DeLauro and Huffman also raised concerns about whether the CFTC has sufficient resources to pursue litigation against multiple states while carrying out its broader regulatory responsibilities.
The lawmakers asked the inspector general to examine whether the agency’s allocation of personnel and legal resources is consistent with its core mission of overseeing derivatives markets and protecting market participants.
Inspector General asked to examine six key issues
According to a post by The Closing Line, the letter requests that the Office of Inspector General evaluate six issues:
- The legal basis for the CFTC’s claim of exclusive federal jurisdiction over sports-event contracts.
- The agency’s decision to withdraw its proposed 2024 rulemaking and subsequent staff guidance.
- Whether the litigation strategy is consistent with the Commodity Exchange Act.
- The impact of the agency’s actions on state gaming laws and tribal sovereignty.
- Consumer-protection risks associated with the expansion of sports-event contracts.
- The cost of the agency’s litigation efforts and related resource expenditures.
Las Vegas interests remain central to debate
Titus has been among the most vocal congressional critics of sports-event prediction markets. As co-chair of the Congressional Gaming Caucus, she represents a district that includes much of Las Vegas and has repeatedly argued that sports-event contracts are functionally similar to traditional sports betting.
Nevada’s gaming industry maintains that federally regulated prediction markets could allow operators to compete with licensed sportsbooks without complying with the state regulatory requirements that govern sports betting.
Inspector General decision remains uncertain
The Office of Inspector General is not required to open an investigation in response to congressional requests, and it has not publicly indicated whether it will act on the lawmakers’ letter.
Regardless of the outcome, the dispute over sports-event contracts continues to expand. With the CFTC pursuing a national regulatory framework and states challenging the agency’s authority, legal experts increasingly view a Supreme Court review as a realistic possibility if lower courts continue to issue conflicting rulings.
