NextFin News - The federal government has escalated its legal offensive against state-level crackdowns on prediction markets, filing a lawsuit against Rhode Island to assert exclusive regulatory authority over the rapidly growing sector. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed the complaint on Thursday, directly challenging Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha, who just last week sued prediction platforms Kalshi and Polymarket for allegedly violating state sports-betting laws. According to CNBC, Rhode Island is now the seventh state targeted by the federal regulator in a widening jurisdictional war that will shape the future of event-contract trading in the United States.
The legal battle centers on a fundamental question of statutory interpretation: whether contracts tied to real-world events are financial derivatives or simply online gambling. Under the Commodity Exchange Act, the federal commission claims sole authority over swaps and derivatives, which it argues encompasses event contracts. Rhode Island, however, joins a growing coalition of states asserting that these platforms are operating unlicensed sportsbooks. In total, 18 states are currently embroiled in litigation over prediction markets, with Minnesota taking the extreme step of moving to ban them entirely.
The federal pushback has received explicit backing from the highest levels of government. U.S. President Trump posted on Truth Social on Tuesday, stating that maintaining the commission's exclusive jurisdiction over prediction market regulation is critical. This political alignment is reflected in the regulator's legal strategy. While state challenges have come from officials across the political spectrum, the federal agency has so far focused its lawsuits on states led by Democratic attorneys general, including Neronha in Rhode Island.
CFTC Chairman Michael Selig, who took office earlier this year, has made defending the agency's turf a cornerstone of his regulatory agenda. Selig characterized the state-level lawsuits as a power grab that ignores decades of legal precedent. In a statement announcing the Rhode Island lawsuit, Selig argued that these state actions seek to limit access to legitimate financial instruments and undermine federal authority. Prior to his appointment, Selig worked as a corporate lawyer representing cryptocurrency and prediction market firms, giving him a deep familiarity with the industry's legal vulnerabilities.
However, the federal regulator's aggressive stance is not without risk, and some legal experts urge caution. Legal analysts at several national firms suggest that the commission's strategy is a high-stakes gamble. If a federal court ultimately rules that sports-related event contracts do not serve a legitimate hedging purpose and are economically indistinguishable from sports betting, the federal agency could lose its regulatory grip entirely. Such a ruling would leave prediction platforms exposed to a chaotic patchwork of 50 different state gambling laws, potentially forcing major operators to suspend U.S. operations. For now, the industry remains caught in a delicate balance between federal protection and state-level hostility.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
