Australian financial watchdog says no prediction markets are licensed in the country

Dig Deeper

The Backstory

Australia draws a hard line on event contracts

Australia’s warning on prediction markets places the country firmly among regulators treating event-contract platforms as a consumer-risk issue rather than a fintech novelty. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission said no prediction markets are licensed in the country, a statement aimed at consumers who may see offshore markets for elections, sports, economic indicators or public events as functionally similar to regulated wagering or trading products.

The distinction matters because prediction markets sit between financial speculation and gambling. Users buy and sell contracts tied to the outcome of future events, often with prices that move like securities. Operators and advocates describe the products as crowd-driven forecasting tools. Regulators focus on a different question: whether consumers understand the risks, have legal recourse if something goes wrong and are protected from market abuse.

ASIC’s message underscores that Australians using offshore prediction markets are outside the country’s financial services safeguards. Its warning that users may be trading against people with confidential or inside information goes to the core vulnerability of thinly traded event markets: a contract may appear to reflect public sentiment when it is actually being moved by participants with privileged knowledge or the ability to manipulate sentiment.

Offshore operators face a widening compliance squeeze

Australia is not acting in isolation. Gambling and financial regulators in several markets have stepped up scrutiny of offshore websites that take bets, offer casino-style games or package gambling-like products in alternative legal structures. The Australian Communications and Media Authority previously blocked Polymarket for breaching the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, putting one of the best-known prediction-market brands on the country’s list of prohibited gambling websites.

The broader enforcement pattern is visible in the U.S., where state regulators have pursued unlicensed online operators even when platforms claim they fall outside conventional gambling rules. The Michigan Gaming Control Board’s cease-and-desist action against nine gambling websites showed how regulators frame the issue: unlicensed platforms may offer familiar betting or casino products while avoiding taxes, responsible gambling obligations and withdrawal standards imposed on licensed companies.

Michigan officials said unregulated sites often create consumer risk through unreliable cash-out terms, minimum play-through requirements and payment channels that include cards, PayPal and cryptocurrency. Those concerns are different in form from ASIC’s warning about insider information and market manipulation, but they lead to the same policy conclusion. Regulators are increasingly unwilling to let offshore digital platforms define their own compliance category when consumers are exposed to wagering-like losses.

That pressure is especially relevant for prediction markets because the sector often relies on jurisdictional distinctions. A platform may be legal or tolerated in one market, blocked in another and ambiguous in a third. ASIC’s statement that no such markets are licensed in Australia reduces that ambiguity for local consumers and puts offshore operators on notice that product design alone will not determine legality.

Sports betting habits raise the stakes

The timing also intersects with a global boom in sports wagering engagement. Prediction markets have expanded from politics and macroeconomic events into sports-adjacent contracts, giving regulators another reason to watch how consumers perceive the products. If a user can buy a contract tied to the outcome of a game, tournament or player event, the line between sports betting and financial trading becomes harder to explain to casual customers.

Recent consumer research highlights why that matters. An Optimove study on NFL wagering intentions found that most U.S. football bettors planned to wager throughout the season, with 77% expecting to bet and 83% planning to wager on the Super Bowl regardless of which teams play. The report also found that 76% use mobile or online platforms, showing how wagering behavior has become app-based, frequent and highly responsive to promotions and product design.

For regulators, that behavioral shift raises the risk that prediction markets become another high-frequency betting channel, particularly for sports fans accustomed to odds, spreads and in-play digital engagement. Optimove found that 63% of bettors acknowledged spending more than they could afford or intended, despite broad awareness of responsible gambling tools. ASIC’s warning that Australians are more likely to lose money than make money reflects a similar concern: disclosures may not be enough when products are designed for repeated engagement.

Sports-linked contracts also can create information asymmetry. In traditional regulated wagering, integrity monitoring, league data controls and operator obligations help manage risks tied to injuries, inside team information or suspicious betting patterns. Prediction markets can lack equivalent oversight, particularly when operated offshore. That is why ASIC’s warning about users potentially betting against better-informed traders is central to its consumer-protection case.

Payments and platforms are part of the risk map

Regulatory scrutiny of offshore prediction markets also turns attention to the infrastructure that makes digital wagering easy: payments, marketing technology, data feeds and customer acquisition networks. The gambling economy now depends on fast account funding, streamlined withdrawals and personalized communications. Those systems can improve consumer experience in regulated markets but also can amplify exposure when the underlying operator is unlicensed.

Payment companies have become central to the regulated sector’s growth. PayNearMe’s report of more than $200 million in 2025 revenue reflected rising demand for payment experience management across sectors including igaming. The company said its PayXM platform supports a range of payment types and channels, while investing in security, compliance and processing reliability.

That emphasis on compliance contrasts with the uncertainty consumers face on offshore sites. A licensed wagering market generally requires operators and vendors to meet standards on payments, anti-money laundering controls, responsible gambling and dispute resolution. Prediction markets operating outside a local licensing system may offer consumers no comparable protections. ASIC’s referral to the ACMA blocked-sites list is therefore not merely administrative; it points consumers toward the practical question of whether a platform is subject to Australian law at all.

The same applies to marketing and acquisition. Digital sports and gaming media networks can move large audiences toward wagering products at moments of high intent. Genius Sports’ planned acquisition of Legend was framed around combining data, audience reach, media inventory and monetization across sports and gaming. In regulated environments, that kind of integration is subject to advertising rules, market-access requirements and partner controls. Offshore prediction markets can tap similar consumer demand without necessarily operating under those guardrails.

A credibility test for emerging betting products

The debate over prediction markets is also a test of how gambling-adjacent innovation is absorbed into mature regulatory systems. Online sportsbooks, casino platforms and suppliers have spent years building licensing, compliance and responsible gambling frameworks. Prediction-market operators seeking mainstream legitimacy face the challenge of persuading regulators that their products are not simply unlicensed wagering with a financial-markets label.

The industry’s broader push toward professionalization is visible beyond enforcement and payments. Initiatives such as CDC Gaming’s 10 Women Rising in Gaming program reflect a sector trying to build talent, leadership and institutional credibility across digital and land-based gaming. Those reputational efforts depend on a clear separation between regulated businesses and offshore operators that avoid consumer-protection obligations.

For Australia, the immediate stake is consumer harm. ASIC is telling residents they may have no meaningful rights if an offshore prediction-market account is restricted, winnings are withheld, a market is manipulated or confidential information influences pricing. The agency’s warning also gives licensed gambling and financial firms a clearer signal: products that resemble betting or derivatives will be judged by the protections surrounding them, not just by how operators describe them.

The unresolved issue is Kalshi, which ASIC’s notice highlights indirectly by omission. Polymarket is on the ACMA blocked list, but Kalshi is not, despite offering contracts across sports, politics and economics. That gap illustrates the difficulty regulators face as new platforms scale faster than enforcement lists and licensing categories can adapt. ASIC’s message attempts to close the practical loophole for consumers: absence from a blocked list does not mean a prediction market is licensed in Australia.

What the warning signals next

ASIC’s intervention is unlikely to be the final word. Prediction markets are expanding at the same time that sports wagering, digital payments and performance marketing are becoming more interconnected. That convergence gives consumers more ways to speculate on events, but it also gives regulators more reason to examine whether existing gambling and financial laws are being bypassed.

The next phase is likely to turn on classification and enforcement. If prediction contracts are treated as financial products, operators may need market licenses, disclosure regimes and surveillance against manipulation. If they are treated as gambling, they may face prohibitions, wagering licenses or advertising restrictions. If regulators conclude they are both, offshore platforms could find few legal paths into tightly regulated markets without major structural changes.

For now, Australia’s position is simple and direct: no prediction market is licensed in the country. That statement shifts responsibility away from product novelty and toward consumer caution. It also aligns Australia with a broader regulatory trend in which digital gambling-like products are being judged by their risks, their safeguards and their accountability when users lose money.