Rep. Titus announced a bill to prohibit sports event contracts as Nevada battles Kalshi and others. The push is clearly partisan: Democrats are driving legislative efforts to restrict the industry.
Rep. Dina Titus has announced plans for a federal legislative proposal aimed at restricting sports-related prediction markets, posting details about what she called the Fair Markets and Sports Integrity Act Tuesday on X. The Nevada Democrat said the proposal is intended to prevent prediction market platforms from offering contracts tied to sporting events or casino-style outcomes.
If enacted as described, the measure would mark the first federal legislation explicitly framed around prohibiting sports-focused prediction market contracts rather than addressing narrower issues such as market integrity or insider participation.
Titus framed the proposal as a consumer protection and gaming-law enforcement effort, arguing prediction markets should not circumvent state gambling rules. The announcement comes as federally-regulated event contract platforms expand deeper into sports, prompting growing debate among lawmakers, regulators and the gaming industry over how those products should be treated under existing law.
Vegas politics, sportsbooks and prediction markets collide
Rep. Titus represents a Las Vegas-area district where casino gaming and sportsbooks remain central to the regional economy. Nevada regulators and industry stakeholders have warned that federally regulated prediction market platforms could compete with licensed sportsbooks without complying with state gaming taxes or licensing rules, a concern that has increasingly shaped regulatory responses.
Titus’ bill surfaces shortly after the Super Bowl, a key annual benchmark for sportsbook activity. Nevada sportsbooks reportedly handled about $133.8 million in wagers, a 10-year low. At the same time, Kalshi generated over $830 million in Super Bowl-related trading volume, highlighting the growing scale of prediction market participation (even if those figures are not directly comparable to sportsbook handle).
Titus has pushed federal gambling policy before, introducing the FAIR BET Act to restore the full tax deduction for gambling losses after Congress reduced the allowable deduction to 90% of losses in the Republican-led tax and spending package dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” She argued the cap could push bettors toward offshore operators or prediction markets and harm regulated gaming activity, reflecting her focus on protecting legal sports betting frameworks.
Nevada regulators are engaged in a series of disputes with event contract trading platforms, including Kalshi, Robinhood, Crypto.com and Polymarket, over their ability to offer sports markets in the state.
Nevada’s push against Kalshi has escalated recently. In a letter filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit this week, the state attorney general’s office said it intends to initiate civil enforcement proceedings aimed at blocking the platform’s sports event contracts from being offered in Nevada. The notice adds another layer to the ongoing jurisdictional clash between states and federally-regulated prediction platforms.
Prediction market legislation takes on political overtones
Efforts to restrict or more tightly regulate prediction markets in the U.S. are, so far, being driven largely by Democratic lawmakers at both the federal and state levels. While the issue has not fully broken along party lines, the early legislative pattern suggests the debate is becoming increasingly partisan.
At the federal level, besides Titus’ bill, recent regulatory pushes have largely come from Democratic lawmakers.
- Rep. Ritchie Torres, a New York Democrat, introduced the Public Integrity in Financial Prediction Markets Act, which would restrict certain government officials and insiders from trading event contracts. The bill focuses on ethics and market integrity concerns rather than banning markets outright.
- On January, 12 Democratic senators sent a letter to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission urging answers and potential regulatory action on prediction markets, citing concerns about insider trading, market manipulation, and their intersection with state gambling law. Signatories included higher-profile lawmakers such as Cory Booker and Richard Blumenthal, highlighting growing Democratic scrutiny of the sector.
At the state level, most legislative efforts to restrict or more tightly regulate prediction markets have also come from Democratic sponsors.
- Hawaii lawmakers, primarily Democrats, advanced legislation that would classify many event contracts as gambling and restrict markets tied to sports, elections and similar outcomes, reflecting concern about how prediction markets fit within existing gambling statutes.
- In Illinois, Democratic Rep. Edgar González Jr. sponsored the ORACLE Act (HB 5059), proposing tighter controls on prediction markets, including certain prohibitions and regulatory requirements aimed at consumer protection and transparency.
- Democratic New York lawmakers, including Assemblymember Clyde Vanel and Sen. Jeremy Cooney, have introduced similar ORACLE-style proposals exploring licensing and potential market restrictions as policymakers assess the intersection between prediction markets and existing gaming law.
- Connecticut has examined guardrails around prediction markets through a proposal backed by Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont focusing on oversight measures like age limits and licensing requirements rather than outright prohibition.
In contrast, Iowa Senate majority leader Mike Klimesh, a Republican, sponsored legislation that would regulate and tax prediction markets rather than ban particular market types.
Prediction market debates enter charged political environment
The emerging partisan slant around prediction market policy comes amid heightened political polarization in Washington. With President Donald Trump remaining an influential figure within the Republican Party and many GOP lawmakers historically favoring market-oriented regulatory approaches, early Democratic-led efforts to restrict event contract trading are beginning to give the issue a clearer political dimension.
That alignment is still developing, but if current trends hold, prediction markets could evolve into another regulatory battleground shaped as much by partisan positioning as by financial oversight or consumer protection concerns.
