Beta
    Regulation

    The CFTC's Prediction Market Rulemaking Window Closes Today — What 800+ Submissions Are Telling the Agency

    The CFTC prediction market ANPRM comment period closes April 30. Here's what 800+ submissions from platforms, state regulators, and consumer advocates are saying — and what comes next.

    By PredictionMarkets.usThursday, April 30, 20268 min read

    Published April 30, 2026 | Category: Regulation | ~8 min read

    April 30, 2026. Today is the last day to file a public comment with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission on its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for prediction markets.

    As of Chairman Michael Selig's House Agriculture Committee testimony on April 16, the CFTC had already received more than 800 submissions — from prediction market platforms, tribal gaming operators, state gaming commissions, industry trade groups, law firms, academics, and individual traders. By the time the portal closes tonight, that number will be higher.

    This is the most significant public input process in prediction market history. The 40 questions the CFTC posed in March cover the central legal and commercial disputes that have produced more than 20 federal lawsuits, three state criminal cases, a Third Circuit appellate ruling, a pending Ninth Circuit decision, and competing bids for Supreme Court review — all in the span of a single year.

    Here is what the major factions are arguing, what a single-commissioner agency can realistically do with 800+ responses, and what traders on Kalshi and Polymarket should expect next.

    What the ANPRM Is — and Isn't

    Quick recalibration for anyone who has not followed the regulatory timeline closely.

    The Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), published March 16, 2026 in the Federal Register as Document No. 2026-05105, is not a rule. It does not change any existing regulations. It does not prohibit or permit any specific market categories. It is the CFTC formally asking: given what prediction markets have become, what should our rules look like?

    As Morgan Lewis summarized in its March 18 analysis, the public should not expect "dramatic changes from the Commission's current stance" just because a comment period closes. The ANPRM is step one of a multi-step regulatory process that ultimately produces enforceable rules — and that process typically takes one to two years after the ANPRM closes.

    CFTC Chairman Selig has been careful to frame the ANPRM precisely this way: "This begins the process of new rulemaking grounded in a rational and coherent interpretation of the Commodity Exchange Act," he said in the March 12 press release. The keyword is "begins." Comments submitted today inform whatever formal proposed rule the CFTC eventually drafts — they do not themselves become policy.

    Primary source: CFTC Press Release 9194-26, March 12, 2026 and Federal Register, 91 Fed. Reg. 12516, March 16, 2026

    Three Factions in the Comment Docket

    The 800+ submissions fall into three broad camps with very different asks.

    Camp 1: Industry — Build the Framework, Don't Break It

    Prediction market platforms, their legal counsel, and allied financial industry groups have filed comments urging the CFTC to use the rulemaking to formalize its exclusive jurisdiction while avoiding restrictions that would eliminate the most-traded market categories.

    The clearest example of the industry position came from ProphetX, a pending DCM applicant, which filed a comment letter on April 21, 2026, published via PRNewswire. ProphetX urged the CFTC to use CEA Section 4(c) — a statutory carve-out authority — to establish a conditions-based framework for sports event contracts that would codify federal preemption of state gaming laws at the regulatory level, not just the court level.

    The Section 4(c) approach matters strategically. The Third Circuit's April 6 ruling in KalshiEX v. Flaherty established federal preemption through a swap-definition argument — holding that sports event contracts are swaps under the CEA's broad statutory definition, making them subject to exclusive CFTC jurisdiction. That argument requires courts to interpret a 1974 statutory definition, and as the Ninth Circuit panel's April 16 skepticism demonstrated, not every court is persuaded.

    A CFTC rule explicitly grounded in Section 4(c) would provide a stronger, more durable preemption basis — one rooted in explicit regulatory authorization rather than interpretive argument. If the CFTC writes that rule, state gaming enforcement against DCM-listed event contracts becomes significantly harder to sustain regardless of how any circuit court rules on the swap-definition question.

    Major law firms including Cleary Gottlieb, Davis Wright Tremaine, WilmerHale, Sidley Austin, and Morgan Lewis have all published analyses of the ANPRM, advising clients to engage with the comment process. The law firm community has itself been a significant source of submissions, particularly from financial institutions exploring prediction market access.

    Primary sources: ProphetX PRNewswire, April 21, 2026; Cleary Gottlieb, April 14, 2026

    Camp 2: State Regulators and Gambling Industry — They're Gambling, Regulate Them Like It

    On the other side, state gaming commissions, tribal gaming operators, and the commercial gambling industry have filed comments arguing that sports event contracts are functionally indistinguishable from sports bets — and should face the same consumer protections, age requirements, responsible gaming mandates, and state taxation that licensed sportsbooks face.

    The American Gaming Association (AGA) and the National Indian Gaming Association have both urged the CFTC to treat sports event contracts as gaming, and have called on Congress to clarify that the CEA's gaming prohibition covers CFTC-registered prediction markets. The AGA's position, as reported by The Guardian, is that sports event contracts are "indistinguishable from legal sports betting" and that allowing them to operate under federal oversight without state-equivalent consumer protections is a regulatory gap that harms both consumers and licensed operators.

    State attorneys general offices have also filed, with Democratic AGs generally supporting stronger consumer protection requirements and some Republican-appointed AGs taking nuanced positions on federalism questions.

    The tribal gaming comments carry particular weight. Tribal gaming operations are federally chartered under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, meaning tribal regulators have their own federal-state regulatory framework to protect — and prediction markets that operate nationally without state licensing are, from their perspective, taking revenue that would otherwise flow through state-tribal compact agreements.

    Primary source: NPR, April 2, 2026; The Guardian, February 17, 2026

    Camp 3: Consumer Advocates — Don't Forget the Retail Trader

    The National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) has been the most prominent voice in the consumer protection lane. The NCPG has urged the CFTC to require responsible gaming standards for prediction market platforms — specifically self-exclusion programs, deposit limits, and advertising warnings.

    The council's position is that regardless of whether prediction market contracts are legally classified as swaps or gambling, the behavioral reality is that many users interact with these platforms as gamblers — and the absence of federally mandated consumer safeguards leaves them without protections that state-licensed sportsbooks must provide.

    The ANPRM itself asked explicitly about responsible gaming standards in Question 40: what aspects of "responsible gaming standards, such as self-exclusion programs, monetary or time limits, and advertising warnings" should the CFTC consider? That question's presence in the 40 suggests the agency is prepared to impose some consumer protection requirements as part of any final rule — the debate is over how prescriptive those requirements should be.

    Primary source: Federal Register, 91 Fed. Reg. 12516 (Question 40)

    The One-Commissioner Problem

    Before the ANPRM closes, it is worth revisiting the structural anomaly that makes everything about this rulemaking unusual.

    As of April 30, 2026, Michael Selig is the only sitting commissioner at the CFTC. The agency normally operates with five commissioners, including at least two from the minority party. Every major action the CFTC has taken on prediction markets since Selig's confirmation in December 2025 — withdrawing the 2024 proposed rule, publishing the ANPRM, filing amicus briefs in the Ninth Circuit, filing federal suits against Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, and New York — has been taken by a single commissioner acting alone.

    Ranking Member Angie Craig pressed Selig on this point during his April 16 House testimony: would he commit to not finalizing rules while he remains the sole commissioner? Selig declined. His answer — that the American people cannot wait for the administration to nominate additional commissioners — is legally defensible. A single commissioner does have the authority to conduct rulemaking.

    But from a durability standpoint, rules finalized by one commissioner with no bipartisan vetting face different political exposure than those passed through a full five-member commission. A future administration with a full commission could revisit rulemaking more easily if it was not the product of a normal majority-vote process.

    For traders: this does not mean Selig's eventual rules will be overturned. It means the rulemaking timeline is compressed, the process is less transparent than normal, and the eventual rules may be more vulnerable to challenge if political circumstances change.

    Primary source: PBS NewsHour / Bettors Insider, April 16-17, 2026

    What Comes Next: The Rulemaking Timeline

    The comment portal closing today does not start a clock that ends with a final rule next month. The rulemaking process follows a defined sequence:

    Step 1: ANPRM (complete today). The CFTC has collected public input on what rules should look like.

    Step 2: NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking). The CFTC drafts actual proposed rule text based on the comments received, including regulatory analysis and cost-benefit assessment required under CEA Section 15(a). This step triggers a new comment period — typically 30 to 60 days — on the specific proposed language.

    Step 3: Final Rule. After reviewing comments on the proposed rule, the CFTC publishes a final rule in the Federal Register. It takes effect 30 to 60 days after publication.

    The 45-day comment period on the ANPRM was unusually short — Davis Wright Tremaine noted in its March 17 analysis that the brief window suggests "a final rule is likely to come sooner rather than later." But "sooner" in federal rulemaking still means months. Realistically, an NPRM could emerge in late 2026, with a final rule possible in 2027 if the commission maintains momentum.

    The litigation calendar does not pause during this process. The Ninth Circuit ruling is pending. The Fourth and Sixth Circuit cases are progressing. The Wisconsin CFTC federal preemption case is active. The ANPRM outcome may influence how courts reason about the CFTC's authority — but the legal fights continue regardless.

    Primary source: Morgan Lewis, March 18, 2026; Davis Wright Tremaine, March 17, 2026

    What Traders Should Actually Watch

    For traders actively using Kalshi or Polymarket, the ANPRM comment deadline is a milestone, not a finish line. Here is what matters for the months ahead:

    The Ninth Circuit ruling, whenever it comes. Oral arguments were April 16. If the Ninth Circuit rules against prediction market platforms — upholding Nevada's authority to block sports contracts — it creates a circuit split with the Third Circuit's April 6 ruling. A circuit split of that magnitude on a billion-dollar industry question is the clearest known path to Supreme Court review.

    The NPRM, when it drops. The proposed rule text will be the first concrete look at what the CFTC actually intends to regulate, restrict, or protect. Watch specifically for: (1) how "gaming" is defined, since this term determines whether state gaming laws can coexist with federal regulation; (2) whether responsible gaming standards become mandatory; and (3) how inside information rules are framed, since the Van Dyke criminal case and the Harvard study on suspicious geopolitical trades have made this a political lightning rod.

    The single-commissioner timeline. Additional nominations would shift the regulatory dynamic. Watch for Senate Agriculture Committee activity on any CFTC commissioner nominations from the administration.

    Platform operations. Neither Kalshi nor Polymarket US suspends operations because a comment deadline passed. Trading continues under existing rules until any final rule takes effect — and under the Third Circuit's preliminary injunction, federal preemption arguments remain strong in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware right now.

    FAQ

    Does the comment deadline today change the rules for Kalshi or Polymarket? No. The ANPRM comment deadline has no effect on current platform operations or market access. Existing rules remain in effect until a final rule is published.

    Can I still file a comment today? Yes, through the close of business on April 30, 2026. Comments go to the CFTC Public Comments Portal, referencing RIN 3038-AF65, Document No. 2026-05105. The portal address is comments.cftc.gov.

    Who were the most important filers? Publicly documented filers include ProphetX (April 21 via PRNewswire), the American Gaming Association, the National Indian Gaming Association, the National Council on Problem Gambling, and numerous state gaming commission offices. Major prediction market platforms including Kalshi and Polymarket are expected to have filed but had not publicly released their submissions as of this article's publication.

    What is the "gaming" definition question and why does it matter? The Commodity Exchange Act prohibits event contracts that involve "gaming," but does not define the term. State regulators argue this prohibition covers sports event contracts. CFTC Chairman Selig argues it does not. Whatever definition emerges in the final rule will be the primary legal battleground for state gaming enforcement for the next decade.

    Could the rule actually ban any markets? Potentially. The ANPRM's public interest questions (Q7-Q22) ask specifically how the CFTC should apply the "contrary to the public interest" standard to categories of event contracts. Markets tied to assassination, terrorism, and war are most exposed. Sports and election markets are less likely to face prohibition under the current administration's posture.

    Will political markets on Kalshi survive the rulemaking? Based on Chairman Selig's public statements and the administration's consistent posture, political and election markets are unlikely to be restricted in the rulemaking. Sports contracts face more regulatory debate, given the state litigation pressure, but the CFTC's enforcement posture has been to defend, not restrict, sports event contracts.

    The Bigger Picture

    When the CFTC published the ANPRM on March 12, Chairman Selig said: "For too long, the CFTC has failed to provide guidance for these markets being used by millions of Americans. This ends today."

    He was right that the regulatory vacuum was unsustainable. Prediction markets grew from roughly five event contract listings per year between 2006 and 2020 to more than 1,600 in 2025. During that same period, the regulatory framework governing them barely evolved. The ANPRM is the first serious attempt to close that gap — a formal acknowledgment that these markets are real, large, and here to stay, and that governing them requires actual rules rather than ad hoc enforcement.

    What those rules look like will be shaped in part by the 800+ comments received over the last 45 days. The CFTC's decisions on gaming definitions, consumer protections, insider trading standards, and public interest determinations will affect every trade placed on every U.S. prediction market platform for years.

    For now: the comment window closes today. What happens next will take longer.

    Explore current markets and platform comparisons across Kalshi and Polymarket at PredictionMarkets.US.

    Sources & Verification

    Back to Articles

    Related Articles

    Regulation

    House Oversight Opens Prediction Market Investigation: What Platform Subpoenas Could Mean for Traders

    House Oversight Chairman James Comer has confirmed an investigation into suspicious Iran-war trades on prediction markets, with subpoenas targeting platform records. Here's what traders need to know.

    9 minMay 14, 2026
    Regulation

    CFTC Takes Prediction Market Fight to the Sixth Circuit — Where Courts Are Already Split

    The CFTC filed an amicus brief in the Sixth Circuit on May 12, 2026, backing Kalshi against Ohio in a case where the same court already has conflicting rulings from Tennessee and Ohio district courts.

    9 minMay 13, 2026
    Regulation

    For the First Time, a Federal Judge Found a Tribe Likely to Win Its IGRA Case Against Kalshi

    A Wisconsin federal judge kept the Ho-Chunk Nation's IGRA lawsuit against Kalshi and Robinhood alive on May 11, 2026 — the first court to find a tribe has a likelihood of success under tribal gaming law, splitting with the California ruling from November 2025.

    9 minMay 12, 2026